Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Those superdelegates are out of excuses

JOHN IBBITSON

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 2:17 PM EDT 06/05/08

Today's primaries in Indiana and North Carolina could effectively end the race for the Democratic presidential nomination ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: Why can't our media get the facts straight. Exit polls, cited by the NY Times from Penn. showed Clinton had about 48% of college graduates plus a significant majority of those with college and some university. Clinton has won the Democratic strongholds and has 12,000 more votes than Obama, when you count Florida and Michigan. Political scientists, in my view, need to be asking what proportion of each candidates' support, comes from mainstream U.S. and is therefor elikely to dominate in an election, and which proportion is likely to be drowned out as they do not represent the mainstream. They also need to ask how past elections ahve turned out in terms of candidates having or not having won their own party strongholds during the primaries. These questions are crucial to predicting who has the best chance at winning in November. I am also tired of the media countdown to death each day, when such races routinely run until June. What gives? Why can't the media just report the facts? And how about actually quoting an economist if you claim that entire field opposes HIllary's gas tax holiday? Bush's injection of about $300 per citizen into the economy by giving refunds to lower income earnears, roughly the same amount, received no such criticism. If Hillary were a man, would the reporting be more fair? Even though this is the 21st Century, and we should be beyond the sabotage of women, I suspect it would be. Hillary has already proven that she is tough enough, smart enough and that she would be an excellent president.
  2. Hail to the Conservatives ! from London, Canada writes: RE: Emma Hawthorne

    Political Scientists may indeed ask such questions, two or three months following the election - or even further. However, whatever conclusion we might come to are most unlikely to reveal and congruence with the minds of the average voter. We do not traditionally judge mid-election or even post-election attitudes as voter opinions are difficult to quantify and positing causality is even more difficult.

    Although I am a Hillary supporter, I think Obama maintains a better chance at winning the General - Hillary has too much 'baggage.

    Then again, if the Democrats prove, yet again, unable to take the White House, I think they seriously need to reexamine both their party and tactics, regardless of who the nominee is.
  3. David Simon from Canada writes: 1/ Obama has baggage too. And his baggage is newly bought.

    2/ Why do the superdelegates have to announce anything if they don't want? I never heard of this in previous elections.
  4. I. Con O'Clast from Canada writes: If Obama cannot win working class votes, it has nothing to do with working class and everything to do with race. On the flip side, if Hillary is myopic enough to think that the super delegates can screw Obama out of the nomination and still bring the black vote to her, she's dreaming in black and white.
  5. Andy Garrett: Parry Sound: June 26 to July 13 from West Palm Beach, United States writes: David: in the past few years the Dems changed their delegate rules and added "super" delegates. As I recall
    they had major problems in 1968 and 1984. Part of the rule change also included "proportional" delegate
    distribution as opposed to winner take all. In other words, the result is a manufactured self created mess that
    is now manifesting itself with this campaign. The Hillary / Barak campaign resembles Burma. The Republicans
    kept their rules to avoid such a disaster.
  6. Canadian Pom from London, England, United Kingdom writes: Emma - plenty of people have said the same thing about Bush's tax cuts. Their value is frequently debated. And Florida and Michigan, please, Obama wasn't even listed on one of those, and there was no campaigning. Perhaps Clinton would be willing to re-run those will an actual campaign and all of her opponents being listed? I'm guessing she wouldn't go for that.

    David - clearly no one can say that superdelegates MUST declare their support. Party members are simply beginning to say that they SHOULD declare their support, for the purposes of deciding the candidacy and allowing the Democrats to start focusing on the election.

    I'm not an American, and don't feel strongly about the candidacy, but I'd have thought that it would make sense for the superdelegates to follow public opinion (which seems to be Obama) unless something truly campaign-breaking comes up. I don't see how Clinton, being as far behind in numbers as she is, can really justify her campaign at this point. She has no interest in the Democrats winning, she's only interested in seeing herself winning.
  7. Cyrus Of Persia from Canada writes: Florida and Michigan do not deserve mention at all. All the discussion around them, coming from Hillary, simply underscores her fundamental lack of character.

    I continue to suspect that the supers will swing for her, though, given the old power mongers she's rolled with for so long.
  8. Andy Garrett: Parry Sound: June 26 to July 13 from West Palm Beach, United States writes: That is one of the stupidest statements on this site in a few days. Too bad for Obama he didn't put his
    name on the Michigan ballot unlike Hillary. We are playing for POTUS not for a Memorial Cup or Queen's
    Plate. You just don't discount 1.5 million voters because the DNC doesn't have their act together and are
    a bunch of buffoons. And to suggest the states "broke the rules" is intellectually lazy and silly. The states
    are sovereign entities under the Constitution of the USA; not committees of political operatives headquartered
    in Washington. The states can have their primaries whenever the citizens of the 50 states through their
    elected officials decide. The arrogance of the DNC knows no bounds or sensibilities. Count the votes
    as they were cast otherwise kiss two states goodby in November.
  9. Loudan Bellicose from Canada writes: Obama has only won in states with large Black populations and in ares with intellectually lacking Latte-Democrats. No one has voted for him based on intellect. Obama has not showed common sense, the one property a president must have.
  10. Uncle Elmer from Canada writes: Doesn't matter. McCain will gut either candidate.
  11. CD W from Canada writes: the white man keeping the brother down!
  12. otto von abbatoir from Los Angeles, United States writes: Another clueless Canadian, lost in America. Hopefully, his salary reflects the depth of his analysis. Superdelegates have every reason be as finicky as they want. The longer they wait, the more either candidate has to bribe them with in order to get them to commit: ambassador to Barbados anyone? It's just like prom with the best looking girl who puts out: the longer she waits, the better offers she's going to get. It's the superdelegates who committed in November or December who will get political development posts in Khartoum.
  13. Robert Wiseman from Scarborough, ON, Canada writes: You know, I don't pay a lot of attention to the intricacies of the American electoral system but even I know that the primaries in Florida and Michigan were set by Republican controlled legislatures. The primary in Florida had both names on the ballot and the voters all turned out to vote, even though neither candidate campaigned. To focus on Hillary Clinton as somehow not deserving the win in Floriday is silly. She deserves both the votes cast and the delegates resulting from those votes. Finally, on this issue, she was in favour of doing the votes over. Obama was not.

    With respect to the superdelegates, if the way the popular vote is to decide the issue, which popular vote should govern. If a superdelegate has that status because of ties to a state, i.e. Bill Richardson as governor of his state, shouldn't he be bound by the wishes of his constituents? In other words, shouldn't he be bound to vote for Hillary Clinton? Of course the argument that the superdelegates don't have their own mind but should follow like sheep is actually an argument that the superdelegate system is flawed and should be done away with. They either are independent or not. If not, why have the category other than to puff up the egos of a bunch of insiders.
  14. Craig Scott from Republic of Newfoundland, Canada writes: I see this ending in Disaster for the democrats. Obama who was a relitive unknown garnered a lot of early support and built up a lead in delegates.

    Now that his skeletons are comming out of his closet people are starting to waver in his support. Hillary has been rather tame on him with her criticism and the Republicans are going to Eat Obama alive and McCain will win the general election by more that 10 points.

    The advantage Clinton has is that she has been raked over the coals so often that there are hardly and secrets left and people are just sick of her being attacked all the time.

    That is why in the most recent poll for the general election have Clinton with a wider margin of victory over McCain than Obama...
  15. Free The West from Free the West, BC, Canada writes: I Cono Clast: you are the typical Lefty that thinks that not voting for Obama is a racist act, but at the same time think that the black vote should belong to him. I am so tired of people like you.

    Emma Hawthorn, I agree with you for once. The media has become a player in the U.S. election rather than just reporting the facts. Their bias has destroyed their credibility. I find it ironic [and hypocritical] however that you have historically cheered on the G&M bias against the Canadian Conservatives.
  16. Peter Bailey from Canada writes: My question is, why does every non US newspaper cover the US election antics every day. I am so tired of seeing all those candidates, specially considering how long it has been going on. Give us a break and let the US networks spew their political spin doctoring.

    Wake me up when the election is upon us and there is some real news to report. I guess they better start campaigning for the 2012 election any day now. Sigh....zzzzzzzzzzzz............
  17. The Wight from Canada writes: Andy Garrett:

    "Count the votes as they were cast otherwise kiss two states goodby in November. "

    Wow, that's some sense of propriety you have there. One major contender wasn't even on the ballot because the issue was decided prior and now you want to count them? The fairest way would be to re-run them altogether and then you could at least have a FAIR result, no?
  18. Canadian Pom from London, England, United Kingdom writes: These superdelegates - what exactly is their mandate? Are they meant to be completely independent? Meant to reflect the popular vote unless they have a pressing reason to not do so? I've not seen any real definition of why they exist.

    Florida and Michgan again - if the DNC can find some way to have them included in a fair manner, they really should. I don't think the candidates should get a say in whether it happens or not, quite frankly!

    I personally suspect that either of these candidates could beat McCain, given the time, and a party interested in winning, rather than infighting. Who is more likely to win seems to vary from poll to poll, so it's difficult to make a call based on that.
  19. B.C. Expat from Ottawa-Hull, NCR, Canada writes: Peter Bailey: so don't read it, let alone comment on it.

    The U.S. is an important country, and the only one contiguous to Canada. I know this is against your will, but history and geography dictate otherwise.

    And to think that U.S. networks "spin doctor" any more than those of any other country is just typical prejudice.
  20. Sue City from Ottawa, Canada writes: Please, let it end.
  21. Mike M from Shenacadie NS, Canada writes: Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: Why can't our media get the facts straight. Exit polls, cited by the NY Times from Penn. showed Clinton had about 48% of college graduates plus a significant majority of those with college and some university. ...........
    ===================================================
    Emma, you been posting for months and I have not yet read one original thought from you. I can obtain the same Clinton spin on CNN from the lunatic Carville and others. For her, it's down and dirty time..not to mention the grovelling Hill and Billy need to do to win over the superdelegates in order to steal the nomination. She'll need Obama until November then she can chuck him overboard. Then the wrath of the Clinton's will come upon those who defected.
    For Obama losing this nomination would do him a lot less harm than what will happen to Dems as a generation of young voters and Africian Americans desert in droves.
  22. Andy Garrett: Parry Sound: June 26 to July 13 from West Palm Beach, United States writes: The Wight: If you had been paying attention you would know that my above statement is similar to what
    I said when they decided not to count Mich and FLA. It is NOT the voters fault that the DNC can't
    adapt to the changes passed bipartisan in the FLA legislature. If Obama failed to put his name on the
    ballot, raises the question as to what he is going to do when the phone rings at 3am. Once again
    it goes to his lack of experience and character.
  23. Steve D from St. John's, Canada writes: Canadian Pom from London, England, United Kingdom writes: "I don't see how Clinton, being as far behind in numbers as she is, can really justify her campaign at this point. She has no interest in the Democrats winning, she's only interested in seeing herself winning." By your reasoning, shouldn't Obama back out gracefully if a united and successful party was all he cared about? Or is he only interested about winning? There are lots of scenarios for Clinton to wiin the nomination. Something needs to be done (and will be done, they are stalling hoping it will be moot) about Michigan and Florida and she will win both of those and Florida with a good margin given the current environment giving her most votes and better justification for her candidacy. Also, all Hillary needs is for Obama or his wife or Rev Wright to reveal again their true feelings about America and Americans. If the press had done their job (proper vetting) instead of rah rahing for Obama then Hillary would have won on Super Tuesday. A lot of people who have already voted for Obama are regretting it now. There are no scenarios for the Democrats that will not result in major disgruntlement among Hillary's supporters, or Obamas supporters and/or Florida and Michigan democrats; and therefore for a win for McCain in the general. The Democrats are irreparably damaged this year.
  24. L. McLaughlin from Calgary, Canada writes: Hillary also has a fair amount of baggage that will be trotted out yet again by Republicans the minute she's the nominee...that's how it's done.
    Here's the disconnect for me...why do we think that those who might have difficulty voting for Barak Obama will it any easier to vote for Hillary Clinton when there's John McCain, a more traditional and familiar type of candidite, to vote for.
    They talk about those "Reagan democrats", well aren't those the very same "working class" demographic we're talking about now. So as I see it, outside actual active party types...there's no guarentee Hillary will take that demographic against McCain. Especially if we see a parade of Bill's indescretions and a blue dress suddenly pop up in Republican ads. (and come on...you know stuff like that will happen)
    As for the gas tax holiday...I don't know enough about economics to argue it but I do know neither McCain or Clinton will be in the White House this summer to implement it. (and I believe the early stories said they wanted it this summer) Best they can manage is to introduce in Congress and then spend the summer arguing.
    I don't know...sounds kind of "pandering" to me.
  25. Mr. Justice from Andy Garrett . . . does he ever get anything right ?, Canada writes: Andy: . . . What do you think about the liar and moral cripple Colin Powell as VP, and the liar and moral cripple Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense ?

    Hillary IS going to be the Democratic nominee; Obama will melt into obscurity in the US Senate. (Maybe Senator Diane Feinschwein (from California . . . you perhaps can find it on a map ?) as her running mate?). She would be the perfect choice for either spot, since her views on foreign and military policy are identical to McCain's.

    SO: What do you think of my idea of having those aforementioned liars and moral cripples in the McCain Administration ? Sound good ?

    . . . and what do you think about McCain's recent suggestion (yesterday?) that the "League of Nations" get involved re: Iran ?
  26. Andy Garrett: Parry Sound: June 26 to July 13 from West Palm Beach, United States writes: Mr. J. I try my best not to make personal attacks against 99% of the posters on this forum. And
    I won't make a personal attack against you; although I am well justified. If you want to have
    a discussion with me then grow up and at least act like an adult Canadian (for the sake of the rest
    of the audience). Otherwise don't waste your time bothering me as I will not respond to your
    inane, juvenile stupidity.
  27. Rain Couver from Canada writes: To sum up the events of today in one neat and tidy article is still fortune telling. All the pundits, spin doctors, polls and news agencies are casting bones or looking into their crystal ball with however much authority they can muster using their imaginations.

    Despite what "experts" think, in a democracy you vote for the candidate that best represents your interests, so forget about whatever everyone thinks they know because they are all making educated guesses.

    I hate that American, and Canadian for that matter, politics attempt to polarize people on issues. Everything is black and white, never shades in between. Take Obama for example, he is both black and white, yet, with one exception when giving his little sermon (because that's what he does, he sermonizes) about race in the first Wright flare up, he ignores the fact that he could be the best example of the American melting pot. He can rise above race, but he doesn't. He keeps mum about his Mom to attract the the black vote which I find beyond contempt. Candidates that steer attention away from who they really are, already have a fatal character flaw that a president cannot have. Look at Bush for example, he hid the fact that he was a complete pea brain during the 2000 election (although I cannot account for why anyone would actually vote for him in a second election). I doubt any other candidate would have left that post in such a mess.
  28. L Harder from Canada writes: Listen to what Obama says and how he acts. The rest is media and political noise designed to detract from the quality of his character. I have a feeling the elites are becoming fearful of his candidacy because his support is broad based rather than from power brokers. He's not beholden to them and can initiate policy that actually helps a broader range of people.

    His response to the gas tax break is an example. He will do the right thing for America's citizens instead of pandering to empty ideas for political gain. It illustrates Clinton"s and McCain"s lack of character to pursue such folly to gain a few political points.
  29. A. Nonomouse from Canada writes: Who cares! McCain landslide. And if you vote for shemale Hilar-ious, you need a brain transplant. She is scum. Ask Monica or Jeniffer Flowers or Pauls Jones or Sally Perdue or But ya cant blame Slick Willie.

    Hillary Clinton a lesbian? Coming out?
    The rumors, whispers and speculation has been heavy this week about the relationship of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's relationship with her personal aide, Huma Abedin. Supposedly, the Los Angeles Times has a story about a sex scandal involving one of the presidential candidates that it's been sitting on.
    Now someone in the government, a Department of Justice official speaks-off the record,

    "I am close enough to Hillary and [her personal aide Huma Abedin to tell you that this rumor is true," the official says. "It is well known inside her campaign that Hillary and Huma are an item.

    "If you call Hillary's residence in DC first thing in the morning, Huma answers the phone," the official continues. "Same thing late at night and on the road. It's a closely guarded secret that Hillary’s inner circle guards at all costs"
  30. E Stuhl from NYC, United States writes: yeah that's right, Emma... it's all because of the candidate's gender. Sounds like you're the one with the gender insecurity! To the point though... I'm a left leaning guy, but if either one of these two numbskulls gets elected, it's going to cost me at least $20,000 to $25,000 per year should they uncap social security tax... and that's not even starting on raising the capital gains tax... nothing is more irritating that listening to these two chumps "buy" votes from the dimwits & union members with my hard earned tax dollars. Each new state in which they campaign just adds to the promi$e$... whatever happened to the inalienable right to the "pursuit of happiness" it's been replaced with the "guaranty of happiness - paid for on someone else's dime". What a load of malarkey.
  31. Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: I would say to my American cousin and any other American who reads this, may the best one win. But is the best one whoever panders to voters or who indulges in character assassination or who wishes to continue the agressive stance of the Bush administration or is it the one who has demonstrated a commitment to improve the lot of ordinary Americans? Just asking. I mention no names since if you really understand what is going on, you will make the right choice. And if you don't, stay home today BECAUSE YOU ARE VOTING FOR THE FUTURE.
    CYMRO
  32. Beatriz Perez-Sanchez from Toronto, Canada writes: Emma, it will soon be time to put away your Clinton pom-poms and start cheering for Obama. By June 3, Mrs. Clinton will have little choice but to concede, at least privately if she cannot muster the class to do so publicly. The fat lady is about to sing and Hillary knows it. She can bluster all she wants and make her last desperate slurs against Obama but the ship is sinking fast. Richardson and Reich got to the lifeboats quite some time ago. Some of Clinton's real rats will be jumping ship soon as well. Having learned the arts of opportunism and insincerity from a real pro, they will do an amazing about-face to ingratiate themselves with Senator Obama in order to protect their posteriors and political futures. Hillary will the end the campaign in bitterness and in relative solitude, surrounded by her husband (if he isn't 'busy' elsewhere) and only the most hopeless and unstable die-hards such as James Carville.
  33. B to the A to the R to the T from the left coast, Canada writes: LMAO...McCain does not have a snow balls chance in Hell, A. Nonomouse. McCain is another Bob Dole. An uncharismatic curmudgeon with stale ideas and failed plans, weak on the economy when strength is needed. Just wait, he's been given a free ride (although he's not going anywhere so it's ok), but once the dems turn on him....booyah! Even without being attacked and with his opponents wounded he can bearly break even.
  34. otto von abbatoir from Los Angeles, United States writes: Canadian Pom: the 'superdelegates' were created by the Democrats to overcome earlier election fiascoes. Yes, they truly are uncommitted in a parliamentary (UK or Canada) sense. As is typical of the past 40 years of the Democratic party, they change the rules to correct the 'injustices' of the past, while creating unforeseen disasters for their future elections. If the Republicans used the Democrats rules, they'd likely be in even more turmoil with regards to having not yet decided on a candidate. What's interesting now is some Democrats want to correct the 'injustices' of three months ago. Even more humorous is the reality that whomever lobbies the superdelegates best will win the nomination. Precisely the kind of process the politicians say they're all against; we must remove the lobbyists and their "stranglehold" on Washington, D.C. I SAY, NO MORE POLITICS AS USUAL!
  35. Evan Herbert from Toronto, Canada writes: Analyzing this contest must be easy for Ibbitson at this point, considering it's the same damn stalemate we've been in since Ohio/Texas.
  36. Erik Richards from Winnipeg, Canada, writes: "Andy Garrett writes: If you had been paying attention you would know that my above statement is similar to what I said when they decided not to count Mich and FLA. It is NOT the voters fault that the DNC can't adapt to the changes passed bipartisan in the FLA legislature. If Obama failed to put his name on the ballot, raises the question as to what he is going to do when the phone rings at 3am. Once again it goes to his lack of experience and character."

    I'm sorry, are you actually suggesting that by playing by the rules and not having his name on the ballot in Michigan that this somehow demonstrates "his lack of experience and character"?!

    Whether you accept it or not, the DNC made a decision: Michigan and Florida broke DNC rules for scheduling and the decision was made to exclude the delegates for those states. States are sovereign, but that does not give them exclusive jurisdiction over every aspect of candidate nominations. You're welcome to argue the theoretical nature of your point from now until doomsday, but I only need to point out the reality of the situation. That makes me neither "intellectually lazy" nor "silly". Is name-calling your first or last resort in a discussion?
  37. Cubby . from Ontario, Canada writes: Emma Hawthorne...college and university mean the same thing in the US unless they're referring to community/technical colleges which is different

    It's shameful that some insist that the Florida and Michigan votes should be counted. They had an agreement for goodness sakes - the fact that Clinton would now renege on that, supposedly for the good of the people underscores why so many people find her untrustworthy and her negatives are so high.

    It's about time that the Clintons start playing by the rules, not moving the goalposts after the game has begun. That's the kind of thing you'd perhaps expect would happen in Zimbabwe not the US.
  38. B to the A to the R to the T from the left coast, Canada writes: The gas tax truly is a gimmick and its sad to watch voters fall for it. The federal tax on gas in the US is pretty low. I doubt they would see any more savings then from our GST cuts. Commodity prices will continue to rise. The cost of gas will rise more if 300 million Americans suddenly think that there will be a great savings around the corner and maintain holiday car travel at previous highs. Then come labour day when the holiday is over, they'll be stunned by $5 per gallon gas.
  39. The Last Word from Central Canada from Winkler, Canada writes: Why do the Clintons REFUSE to let Bill's library to release her documents from his library. There must be something very sinister in those hidden files.
    I smell "Watergate" whenever I hear the name "Hillary" or "Clinton. She is "pretending" to release papers but she is only stalling. WHY?
  40. Andre Carrington from Portland, United States writes: Whatever happens, it will have been an epic battle between Senators Obama and Clinton. As an African-American who supports Senator Clinton I feel unhappy that I may be forced to vote for Senator McCain in November as a last-ditch attempt to try to stop a leader (Obama), that I regard as too inexperienced to assume the presidency at such a critical time. We have a faltering economy, two wars and a rise of new centers of power in China, India and Brazil. I just cannot feel comfortable with another neophyte leader after what happened in 2000.

    The major reason that I prefer Senator Clinton to Senator Obama is the presence of former president Bill Clinton. He would be an invaluable advisor to Hillary Clinton and he understands how to work with the Congress and would help focus the efforts of her administration on the key issues that will determine the quality of life in the United States.

    I think that the Democrats will eventually nominate Senator Obama but - there will be a significant number of democrats will stay home (or vote McCain), in November in protest. Indeed, in states like Florida or Michigan, I would be very surprised if many democrats cam out to support Senator Obama - given his indifference to their voters.
  41. Albin Forone from Canada writes: The poor Democratic donkey, like the one in Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" is likely to be cruelly beaten about the eyes just for being stupidly erstwhile reconciling its ultra-proportional votes with the need for practical leavening. The political reality is that a lot of earlier Obama voters might well be having second thoughts in the harsh glare of the Wright Light on their boy, and the job of the SDs is to be the party's political realists whenever ultra-democracy wrings its hands inconclusively. It looks like ultra-democracy will leave the process wringing its hands, and the SDs job is precisely not to be stampeded into an ideological corral, but to consult with each other and try to pick the most competitive candidate.
  42. Patrick King from Canada writes: I've tried to avoid talking about radio talk show host Ed Schulz because I think too little of him. Enough is enough. I can't put up with him anymore. He looks like a 200-pound gorilla with three chins and no brain. He has a loud voice and everytime he appears on TV, he yells to have his voice heard. Earlier in the campaign, he was often introduced on Larry King Live as a supporter of Obama, but he would support Hillary Clinton if she could win. That means he is a sycophant. I don't know who will tune in to his radio talk show because he comes across as one of the least intelligent persons in the media business. Jack Cafferty is another one. He is bitter, balding, and he always looks like the world has ended long long ago. Ed Schulz and Jack Cafferty are the only way Obama's message resonates with me. These two people look old and hopeless. In a business that demands new faces, Schulz and Cafferty should fade out because they are really difficult to look at. I feel sorry for Obama because they are typical of his supporters.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top