Most of the time, democrats seem no better

I'm pretty far from a crazy hippy liberal, I like the death penalty, I also like women choosing what to do with their bodies, and I don't give a flying fig that the ten commandments were in front of that court house, hell they're good rules to live by even if you're not a bible thumper. I do think the pledge is ok as it is, but am fine if we return it to the original, none "Under god" version, since that was added for lame reasons.

All of that said, I mostly think both parties are so crooked and not at all interested in their constituents that both should be disbanded and let's see what happens then. Case in point!

It would seem that in the interest of keeping "turmoil" which to me means discourse and debate, from the national convention, the Democratic party decided some time ago, to be undemocratic in their tie breaking. Way to go guys. Way to be better than "the other side".

From the CNN article,

"Party rules call for the votes of superdelegates -- 800 or so partyofficers, elected officials and activists -- to tip the balance. Theparty instituted the system to avoid the turmoil that a deadlocked racewould create at a convention.

...

While pledged delegates are allocated with the understanding they'll vote the way their state went in its primary or caucus, superdelegates are free to vote however they want. And even if they pledge their support to a candidate, they're free to change at any time."

Meaning, that these better than everyone else delegates can be swayed by political favors, poilitical pressure, and oh I supposed but not really, popular pressure from oh, i dunno. THE FREAKIN' PUBLIC! Essentially from what I take from this article, the Democratic party has decided that if the public should happen to be split, we lose any and all right to decide and the decision comes down to a select few, hey, that's almost like the farse of an election system we use here.

""If a perception develops that somehow this decision has been made not by voters participating in primaries or caucuses, but by politicians in some mythical backroom, I think that the public could react strongly against that," Devine said."

I can't imagine why we'd think something like that. It's only been the status quo in Washington for mmm forever or close to it? Is there any one politico or other that thinks Washington isn't run by back room deals? Hello Pork barrel ring any bells? The system is crooked and even the least politically involved believes that. So yeah, should some shady shit happen, we'll call it like we see it.

In talking about Walter mondale, who was one of the first to benefit from SuperDelegates,

" Mondale was able to line up the superdelegates going into the convention and avoid a fight on the convention floor."

I read "...avoid a fight on the convention floor." to mean avoid a debate or any type of discussion on the issues and ideals that each candidate brought, in order to just "move things along" is the convention really nothing more than a pep rally? If there's a clear winner than sure, pep rally it up, yo'! but if there isn't the convention should be where it gets decided! The candidate should be selected on the strength of his or her arguments and character, not on how well they wheel and deal with a tiny un-picked by the populace minority.

I've said this before, Democrats emberass me. The party that is supposed to be for "everyone" keeps edging closer and closer to being only for the "everyone" that matters and can further the political agenda, or donate the most. Isn't that the Republican parties platform?