I read this article (quoted below with a link to the original posted website) that says the Super-delegates get campaign cash from the presidential candidates coffers. I don’t know about you but I find this point to be more than a little disconcerting. I mean they are essentially “buying” someone’s vote. Something we as a nation as SUPPOSED to be against. Don’t worry, I know it happens to a much smaller degree all the time but when you have people paying out such large sums of money to people to can change the tide of elections with a SINGLE vote… that’s a problem. Also notice this quoted section of the article:

Obama’s political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.   

If my memory serves me correctly, wasn’t Obama “on the fence” about running for president during that time? Now it seems like he was on the fence because he was looking to garner enough support from the super-delegates as an insurance policy against the possible close race between himself and another Democrat.  He spent an awful lot of money wooing the super-delegates long before he committed to running for president. Maybe I’m naive and this is normal practice and nothing about it is wrong. Well, it may be “normal practice” but some how it just doesn’t seem like a fair way to go about winning an election. I know that long ago the way our leaders were ‘elected’ was set in place…. the delegates and the electoral college were implemented to balance the voting between less populated states vs larger populated states as well as accounting for the “less educated” people of the interior states. Sound like a control issue to me even back then. Be that as it may, those arguments are antiquated and our systems needs to be changed to all popular voting, pure and simple. 

Superdelegates get campaign cash

Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor February 14, 2008 03:54 PM

Many of the superdelegates who could well decide the Democratic presidential nominee have already been plied with campaign contributions by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a new study shows.”While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years,” the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported today.About half the 800 superdelegates — elected officials, party leaders, and others — have committed to either Clinton or Obama, though they can change their minds until the convention.Obama’s political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.Clinton’s political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000. 

Today I turned on CNN looking for updates on the current election standings. What’s happening between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and to see how much more ridiculous Senator McCain can sound every time he opens his mouth (I’m not a fan of his just in case it wasn’t obvious). CNN was showing a live broadcast of the Congressional hearing on the possible steroid use of Roger Clemens. Now, I completely understand that CNN needs to broadcast major events. They have a responsibility to show us what’s happening in our world and this trial is one thing that’s happening. My contention is not with CNN but with the general idea that Congress needs to have a hearing regarding possible steroid use in a baseball player. For the record I believe if Roger signed a piece of paper saying he won’t take steroids - and he took steroids - then he’s wrong and should be held accountable by the MLB Association. That’s as far as I go with that. I don’t give a rats ass if anyone takes steroids, smokes cigarette’s, drinks alcohol, does ecstasy or smokes pot. If they’re not hurting anyone else then who cares. My government is not here to protect me from myself. That’s what parents are for. Apparently MLB can not handle it’s own affairs so they look to the government.

I’m not an attorney so I’m sure I’ll get more than a few emails explaining some legal justification for Congress to hold the hearings. That’s not as important to me as the overall WHY. Is it really so damned important to the United States of America whether or not Clemens used steroids? The answer is emphatically NO! He’s a ball player… an athlete… an entertainer. Why on earth is it that this such an important issue and things like the economy, the North American Union, V-Chip, why we REALLY attacked Iraq, etc. are largely ignored? Are we as a society that apathetic to these issue? Do we really place more importance on knowing what celebrities do, who they marry, what drugs they take and whether or not they wear panties in public than we do on issues that directly influence us as a nation?

It would seem to be true… unfortunate but true. If we had more of a focus on other more important issue maybe our country wouldn’t be headed for a collapse. No I don’t think we’ll totally collapse, but we’re heading in the wrong direction. The wrong direction on so many issues. As a society we’re placing importance in the wrong areas. In doing so we’re allowing others to trample our rights, intrude on our privacy and erode our constitution. By others I mean George W. Bush and his neo-conservative benefactors.

The truth is out there. You just have to WANT to see it. Whether or not Roger Clemens is an issue that needs to be dealt with but it’s NOT a major issue. Our values need to change if we’re to really take this country in the right direction.