Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to Obama

This is a big pick up for Barack Obama: A man Bill Clinton appointed to head the Democratic National Committee, a superdelegate who had previously supported Hillary Clinton's presidential big, and a Hoosier to boot. The Associated Press has the story.

A leader of the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton has switched his allegiance to Barack Obama and is encouraging fellow Democrats to "heal the rift in our party" and unite behind the Illinois senator.

Joe Andrew, who was Democratic National Committee chairman from 1999-2001, planned a news conference Thursday in his hometown of Indianapolis to urge other Hoosiers to support Obama in Tuesday's primary, perhaps the most important contest left in the White House race. He also has written a lengthy letter explaining his decision that he plans to send to other superdelegates.

"I am convinced that the primary process has devolved to the point that it's now bad for the Democratic Party," Andrew said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

Bill Clinton appointed Andrew chairman of the DNC near the end of his presidency, and Andrew endorsed the former first lady last year on the day she declared her candidacy for the White House.

Andrew said in his letter that he is switching his support because "a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists (Republican) John McCain."

According to the AP, the Obama campaign did not reach out to Andrew, who instead shifted his allegiance after having been impressed by Obama's handling of the Jeremiah Wright situation in recent days and Obama's "principled stand" (the AP's words, not mine) in opposition to a temporary curtailment of the federal gasoline tax.

But as much as the confidence Andrew shows in Obama's campaign is important -- and it is; the talking points he passes on to the AP are directly on mark for Obama's message -- the fact that Andrew is yet another key Democratic Party official (and a longtime ally of the Clintons at that) is calling for a beginning of the end to the process in the hopes of turning the focus of the party to fighting John McCain rather than within itself suggests that there may actually be something to the predictive but thus far illusory reports that closure may be nearing.

No doubt the results from Indiana and North Carolina next week, and to a lesser extent a state like Oregon and perhaps even Puerto Rico, will play a significant role in convincing the party to move in one direction or the other (though the race for pledged delegates is all but over at this juncture).

Nevertheless, news of the Andrew endorsement comes a day after Obama picked up three new superdelegates to Clinton's two, and ups his lead in this metric since his Pennsylvania loss to 11 to 6. Perhaps even more importantly, it represents the first time that Clinton's lead among this segment of delegates has been less than 20 since the most nascent stages of the campaign (it now stands at 19). What's more, it represents a major shift, not only in the past few days, but also the past several weeks and even few months (in the period roughly between Super Tuesday and the Pennsylvania primary, 84 percent of superdelegates announcing their endorsements backed Obama rather than Clinton).

So I'm still waiting to see if the raft of dozens of superdelegates endorsing Obama, which has been foretold at least a couple of times (back before mini-Super Tuesday in early March, as well as in the lead up to the Pennsylvania primary) but never actually came to fruition in the way it was expected, will actually and finally occur. But frankly, I'm not holding my breath, even if I do think it may happen after voting is done towards the beginning of next month.



Display:


That strikes me... (2.00 / 1)

... as a very weak reason to endorse someone. It has nothing to do with the person being endorsed, other than a perception of the state of the race. If someone else were ahead, he'd endorse that person. What kind of reason is that?


by OrangeFur on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:53:46 AM EST

A wise move. (none / 0)


by dystopianfuturetoday on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:59:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A wise move. (none / 0)

... but hardly a solid supporter, don't you think? If Obama weakens he'll likely switch back.


by kristoph on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:04:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A wise move. (2.00 / 1)

There's one month left. This thing seems to be finally wrapping up thank God.

It's about time to go after the crazy old coot.


by wengler on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:16:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A wise move. (none / 0)

No way.

He is switching because he sees Obama as the clear winner.  Read the letter.  It isn't ambiguous.  If you need to find the letter, it is in a rec'd diary at Kos.


by nwgates on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:56:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A wise move. (none / 0)


No, it's stupid.  He's trying to get the game called early because the side he favors leads slightly but is gassed.
by killjoy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:12:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A wise move. (none / 0)

I don't understand why you think he necessarily favors Obama.  He had long ago endorsed Clinton.  He was DNC Chair for her husband.  He's a serious player in Democratic politics and wants to win this election.  Obama was clearly not his first choice, but as he says, he has seen enough that he can be comfortable supporting Obama, and he doesn't think Clinton has a chance at the nomination.  So he's doing what he thinks is right to bring the process to a close.


by deminva on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:57:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A wise move. (2.00 / 1)

If you clicked on the link and read the article you'd see that he gave some reasons he supports Obama.  That part just wasn't quoted by the diarist.


by Becky G on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:12:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A wise move. (none / 0)

Another backstabber, what it must feel like to the Clintons.  By the by NY Times/CBS Poll has Obama and McCain tied but Hillary beating McCain by 5, indicating to me that SHE'S gaining among independents.


by handsomegent on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:49:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A wise move. (none / 0)

Once it's down to one Dem candidate most of HRC's supporters will be for Obama (as opposed to McCain). So that number will change dramatically. I'm sure the Repubs are well aware that McCain's numbers are inflated now due to the prolonged primary.


by Becky G on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:14:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A wise move. (none / 0)

It shows me that she is clearly the one candidate left not being attacked on all sides.


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:33:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's really a bad move to (none / 0)

call up an analogy to the Dolchstosslegende.

Doesn't reflect well on Hillary's side.


by ogre on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:46:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

True... BUT... (none / 0)

He made it clear why he was changing.  He wants the process over now so we don't lose in November from more months of disunity.  

And I agree.  At this point, somebody who used to be a former DNC chair has to have enough sense of responsibility to act in the best interests of the Party that he served for, rather than basing his decisions on personal loyalty.


by Dumbo on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:06:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

more reasons (2.00 / 5)

Actually, he gave some more reasons for the switch:

Andrew said the Obama campaign never asked him to switch his support, but he decided to do so after watching Obama's handling of two issues in recent days. He said Obama took the principled stand in opposing a summer gas tax holiday that both Clinton and McCain supported, even though it would have been easier politically to back it. And he said he was impressed with Obama's handling of the controversy surrounding his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

"He has shown such mettle under fire," Andrew said in the interview. "The Jeremiah Wright controversy just reconfirmed for me, just as the gas tax controversy confirmed for me, that he is the right candidate for our party."
http://www.time.com/time/politics/articl e/0,8599,1736508,00.html


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:28:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: more reasons (none / 0)

Interesting how above your comment, people are claiming that Joe Andrew doesn't give any reasons.    

Then you cite two, of the many reasons he gives for backing Sen Obama...  and nobody acknowledges that.  

Thank you for posting the reasons.

Here's a link to the letter on dKos.   It is well written, thoughtful and insightful.   Maybe we should all read it before continuing our comments.  

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/1/1 02837/5934/498/506979


by ruscle on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:51:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That strikes me... (2.00 / 1)

Because it is weak.  It's now turned into a popularity contest.  It's like Obama's promising chimichangas in the lunch room and Bonne Bell lip gloss dispensers in all the girls' bathrooms.

I hope everyone's happy: Election 2008 has turned into middle school on steroids.


by KimPossible on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:38:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That strikes me... (none / 0)

How is backing the the guaranteed nominee of the Democratic party by a fellow democrat be considered weak?


by Cleveland John on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:00:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (2.00 / 0)

Obama needs all the help he can get at this point to break the current narrative so I expect there will be more endorsements from any SD's leaning towards him.

The true undecideds will be watching the NC and IN results.


by kristoph on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:02:30 AM EST

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support (none / 0)


yep, I also read this as Obama leaners trying to desperately to swing things as the campaign flounders and air goes out of it.

I'm hoping it's an airing out and exposing to light of their real reasons for backing him.

The whiff of or overt centrist or conservative lean is all over the people who have come out for him recently.  


by killjoy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:06:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support (2.00 / 1)

Wow.

Now I can see one of the narratives that will come out of this endgame: Clinton totally had Obama on the ropes, so the power players made the superdelegates all save him by endorsing him.  They were afraid to let it go all the way, so they cut short the process.

On the other hand, you're basing your interpretation of desperate foundering on what -- Rev. Wright's latest comments?  In case you haven't seen the WSJ poll, American voters are a lot less concerned by Obama's connection to his pastor than they are by McCain's connection to Bush or Clinton's perceived lack of trustworthiness.


by deminva on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:03:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Stench of desperation (none / 0)

"Obama leaner" is not something you'd expect to find being tagged on someone who'd ALREADY anounced support for HRC.

That's not a leaner.

That's not even an undecided who settled.

That's someone who looked at Obama's actions and the state of things and CHANGED HIS MIND.

For those who have a Bush-famiglia view of loyalty (always, forever and upward only) that might be "betrayal."  That's their privilege.  Personally, I don't think ANYONE has a RIGHT to someone's vote.  You earn it--and you retain it by continuing to earn it.  And you make sure that no one out-earns you.

It's politics.


by ogre on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:51:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (none / 0)

I think you are right. He's received 8 superdelegates this week and it looks like the rest are just waiting for the right timing.


by Politicalslave on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:34:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (none / 0)

You guys keep saying, "The undecided will..." and it never happens. Obama loses Penn. and is still picking up more SD's. Obama hits the Wright wall again, and is still picking up more SD's. Now they are "watching IN and NC" and the implication is that these primaries will be the "turning point." It's a never ending argument of "just wait, things are starting to change."
John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!
by proseandpromise on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:30:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Turning Point (none / 0)

The problem with the idea of Indian being a turning point... or even the latest Wright junk being a turning point... IS that assuming there is a turn, there's not enough room left after the turn for Clinton to pick up enough delegates to clearly win this.  

A turn will only shave a few points of Obama's delegate lead.   It will not totally reverse all that has happened up to now.  


by ruscle on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:00:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Of course (2.00 / 0)

a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue the process.  There's a reason for that!  Why don't we rally behind the nominee at the end of June?  That idea has been floated by both sides, and it's coming up real fast. I'm not crazy about the idea of Obama as the nominee, but I'll feel a lot better about it if the process plays out to final primary.  If it doesn't at this point I'll feel pretty ripped off by my party.  I won't be alone in that.


by Susan in Oregon on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:08:20 AM EST

Re: Of course (2.00 / 0)

I agree totally.

If, in June, Clinton does not have the popular vote lead, if she is not close on the pledged delegates then I can see why they would want to end it and I would support that.

Any earlier and I am staying home come November.


by kristoph on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:17:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So here's my question (2.00 / 4)

I have no real problem with rallying behind a nominee in June, except that I don't want to get stuck in a narrative over who's the real legitimate candidate.  Recent ideas about the "popular vote winner" that exclude all caucus states are meaningless.  

I guess I'm concerned that we're in a bad position as far as the overriding narrative goes and I can see a clear and strong reason for trying to get past that narrative before it (if it hasn't already) becomes completely toxic to the party.  

The long and short of it is, whoever has 2025 delegates when all is counted is the legitimate candidate.  This is a process that should be attacked outside of the election itself.  Doing it now damages the chances in November and that's troubling for me.


I'm only a click away
by juliewolf on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:28:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

the legitimate candidate... (none / 0)

...I don't want to get stuck in a narrative over who's the real legitimate candidate.

And that seems to be the Clinton game plan, to question the legitimacy of an Obama win all the way up to the Denver Convention based on any of the numerous made-up metrics they keep floating.  

That's a disaster.  First, because it won't work for her, and second, because it would unnecessarily prevent the party and Obama from battling McCain until September!  That's a huge disadvantage.

And look at how clever and happy the Republicans are to exploit this extended mess by echoing anything Hillary says about Obama.

The Clintons entered this contest with all the advantages, and yet they are losing and certainly lost.  It's time for the grown-ups to step in.  Hillary says the superdelegates can do whatever they want.  Well, here's one that is doing what he wants and thinks is best.


by Dumbo on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:12:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the legitimate candidate... (none / 0)


The Obama concocted metrics are substantially more bogus.  C'mon, he's "won more states"???  Hey, let's annul all Michigan and Florida votes???  He hasn't won, the fraud you're perpetrating by claiming that he has is not converted to truth by all Obama activists pretending that it is true.

Obama's calling Clinton a liar and untrustworthy...gee, you think the Republicans may have picked that up?  

I think the grownups see the Hillary-hating breaking down and the Obama campaign running out of steam.  Or rather, it's the Bismarck, running in circles with its rudder jammed and oil leaking out now.  With the big guns and torpedos closing in on it.


by killjoy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:24:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the legitimate candidate... (2.00 / 1)


"The Obama concocted metrics are substantially more bogus.  C'mon, he's "won more states"???  Hey, let's annul all Michigan and Florida votes???  He hasn't won, the fraud you're perpetrating by claiming that he has is not converted to truth by all Obama activists pretending that it is true."

WOW.  Hello Pot, This is the Kettle calling...umm yes, he has won more states.  Um, he leads in the popular vote as well as pledged and elected delegates.  He leads by every single commonly accepted metric except for the "wishing for Hillary to win" metric.


Congratulations Steny Hoyer! Our 2008 Chickenshit Leader Of The Year!
by RockvilleLiberal2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:37:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the legitimate candidate... (none / 0)


The bar lowers from "won" to "leads".

He's not exactly leading in the metric of "winning the remaining votes and primaries'.

He's not leading in the metric of "winning against John McCain".

He's looking very bad in the metric of "nominees don't lose the last dozen contests and then claim a win on technical grounds".


by killjoy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:49:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the legitimate candidate... (none / 0)

as opposed to losing 11 straight contests then saying that Caucases don't count?  Come on man, you can't have it both ways.  

"winning the remaining votes and primaries' - you mean like the 70% of EVERY REMAINING CONTEST she has to win to remain viable?

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt...


Congratulations Steny Hoyer! Our 2008 Chickenshit Leader Of The Year!
by RockvilleLiberal2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:00:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the legitimate candidate... (none / 0)

"He's not exactly leading in the metric of "winning the remaining votes and primaries'.

He's not leading in the metric of "winning against John McCain"."

Ummm, no one is winning those - polls don't count as "winning", as they aren't relevant to the outcome.  It's like saying a basketball team is "winning" because the oddsmakers have them favored.

And "claim a win on technical grounds"?  C'mon, that's quite disingenuous.  To use the basketball analogy again, it's like saying a team that builds a 80-55 lead over 3 quarters but gets outscored 15-25 in the 4th quarter to only win 95-80 won on "technical grounds".  Building up an early lead and stumbling a little at the finish is not a "technical victory", it's an honest victory by the rules.


by ThinkerT on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:17:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the legitimate candidate... (none / 0)

You live up to your name.


by Politicalslave on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:38:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course (2.00 / 2)

Look, we all know, with a reasonable amount of certainty, what the run down will be on June 3rd. More than likely it'll be: Obama wins NC, OR, MT, and SD, while Clinton wins WV, KT, and PR with Guam and Indiana being relatively close or tied. At that point Clinton will be able to claim some kind of popular vote lead by using some variation of a metric that includes MI and FL and excludes WA, IA, NV, and NH. Meanwhile she'll still be behind roughly 150 pledged delegates. Based on current trends, Obama will probably have overtaken her in Super Delegates by that point as well. At most you're taking about a 20 pledged delegate difference one way of the other depending on how well they compete in various states.

If this were a nice, patty-cake campaign it would be fine to let the clock run out. But stop pretending like you can't see the outcome by this point in the primary, or that you are enraged about the Supers endorsing now or later. There's about a month left of gametime, and no significant game changers left on the table.


by TheSilverMonkey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:38:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course (none / 0)

There is no popular vote in a primary. The caucus states don't report popular vote so all Hillary's numbers just leave them out. It's totally dishonest and fools a lot of her supporters but not experienced politicians (SDs). Hillary's numbers include states that don't count and leave out states that do count. So no, that will not be a consideration at the end of the process. It's a delegate process.


by Becky G on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:20:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I take it... (none / 0)

you stay home a lot.

Most cycles we never get anywhere near the late primaries.  The leader gets ahead and -- even before getting a majority -- people cash in and unify for the sake of the party and the nation.


by ogre on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:52:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course (2.00 / 0)

The last primaries are June 3rd. How about we rally around a nominee then?


by wengler on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:18:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course (none / 0)

It seems logical to me.


by kristoph on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:34:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course (none / 0)

I would agree with you, Susan, if Senator Clinton were not bent on negative campaigning and instead acted like Mike Huckabee in his final few months on the campaign.  If, for instance, when asked about Rev. Wright's comments, she said something like "Let's talk about issues."  But she cannot stop herself, because she (and most everybody else) knows that she cannot win this nomination without effectively destroying Obama.  I say that because she needs about 70% of the remaining pledged delegates to overcome her deficit.  That means winning every primary 70% to 30%--a margin she hasn't achieved yet.  

Or perhaps she could win the nomination with fewer pledged delegates if she convinced the SDs that Obama was unelectable, but again, she can only do that by trying to help bring him down.


by deminva on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:08:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

As an Obama supporter... (none / 0)

I feel about the same.  I would prefer that Obama get the nomination, but I will support the Dem in November whoever that is.  I worry extending this thing too long will hurt us in the GE, so hopefully it really will wrap up no later than June.


by protothad on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:19:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (none / 0)

The big question is how Clinton plans on expanding her lead from 19 superdelegates to an 80-120 superdelegate lead, which is what she'll need to overcome Obama's pledged delegate advantage.

I wish it would be beneficial to continue the process but the negative campaigning is out of control and it's hurting us. We've all lost focus on how disastrous it could be if McCain wins. We can't afford for that to happen, yet right now we've got half of the Democratic party and all of the GOP ganging up on the presumptive nominee and I can see why Sullivan wants to see it stop. For what it's worth, I live in MT and haven't voted yet either but I still want the supers to endorse as fast as possible so we can defuse the notion that this is still a closely competetive primary.


by Hammy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:26:18 AM EST

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (2.00 / 1)

By the way, that leads comes from DNC members where she leads 145 to 120. If you go by governors, representatives, and senators, Obama leads 109 to 101


_____________
changiness
by lizardbox on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:36:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I could never understand (none / 0)

Clinton's, "support," of the gas tax holiday. She gave a specious answer at first about going for it if they could find a way to pay for it and drilling into our Alaskan reserves to lower prices. Then she pivoted to the asinine suggestion that we take the tax out of the oil companies instead of the consumers, as though the oil companies would not raise their prices accordingly to cover the tax on their end (unless we are now regulating the price of gasoline - in which case, if we CAN regulate their prices, why not just MAKE them lower the price permanently?). I suppose internal polling made the empty campaign promise look good enough to the Average Joe for her to run a full blown commercial about it. Only problem is, anyone who is paying attention knows that the voters only have a marginal say at this point - there's just not enough delegates left to bring anyone across the finish line. It seems obvious the Supers would not fall for this line of policy that was shot down by essentially every major economic voice. Moreover they more than likely would not appreciate her taking sides with John McCain on the issue, or failing to address the greater problems inherent with the plan and how it fails to address the real need of this country to move toward energy independence. It seemed as though she'd be shooting herself in the foot with the more informed, politically active Supers, and this endorsement makes a good case for that.


by TheSilverMonkey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:27:00 AM EST

Re: I could never understand (none / 0)

I would suspect that Clinton thinks that if she can pull off a surprise victory in Indiana she can control the narrative and get more SDs to support her.  But just because she thinks it doesn't mean it's going to work out that way.


I'm only a click away
by juliewolf on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:30:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I could never understand (none / 0)

I suppose it is a treading-water move, just worrying about winning Indiana. Of course, like many of her strategies this entire political season it seems short-sighted and like it is failing to account for the endgame.


by TheSilverMonkey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:41:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I could never understand (none / 0)

I don't think a Clinton win in Indiana will be a surprise. In fact, it's a must or the contest is over.

I think a Clinton win in NC would be a HUGE surprise though, and would greatly change the narrative.

Anyway, I think that Clinton thinks she can reduce the pledged delegate gap to perhaps 75 by June 3rd and take the popular vote lead. If we then add FL and MI into the mix (and perhaps John Edwards delegates) it becomes a fairly close delegate contest which she could possibly win with a 50 super delegate margin.


by kristoph on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:42:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I could never understand (none / 0)

Unless Clinton is out of her mind, (and I give her far more credit than that) she doesn't hope to close the pledged gap to 75. She would need to win every state from here on 60-40 to get that kind of margin. If you suppose May 6th is a wash and they split the delegate proportioned there evenly, she then has to win every contest 68-32. Keep in mind, either of those two scenarios would be margins larger than ANYWHERE she has won so far, with the sole exception of Arkansas. She needs, realistically, 210-230, or 74%, of the current crop of Supers to come out for her to win this thing.


by TheSilverMonkey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:54:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I could never understand (none / 0)

nods I don't get it.  Unless her plan is to blackmail Obama into withdrawing, I just don't see the point.  She's perfectly welcome to continue at this point, but I just don't see why anyone thinks she has a chance in hell.


I'm only a click away
by juliewolf on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:42:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe she saw (none / 0)

Primary Colors.


by Dumbo on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:17:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe she saw (none / 0)

Oh geez; I so hated that movie.


I'm only a click away
by juliewolf on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:50:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary campaign for all the remaining states... (2.00 / 0)

I think Hillary has been fighting for every state since being crushed in Februrary (the Mark Penn strategy sucked, can't deny it).  That's what shocked the Obama camp, that Hillary had real fight in her, that she really loves this country and really believes that her knowledge, experience and personality is the right things we need right now for President of the United States.

I am watching the network news trying to spin this back to Obama, but the tide is changing.

If Hillary wins NC (with strong votes from independents), then Obama is in trouble.  And all those who turned their backs on Hillary will pay a dear price.


by stefystef on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:18:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary campaign for all the remaining states. (none / 0)

Apparently the Supers found a way to turn it back to Obama:

http://thepage.time.com/2008/05/01/thurs days-super-battle/

Tide changing indeed.


by TheSilverMonkey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:01:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Surprise Victory? (none / 0)

Since when was Hillary ever expected to lose Indiana? If she wins, it will not be a surprise to anyone least of all to the supers - who are the only ones that need to be impressed one way or the other.


by CB Todd on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:25:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair (2.00 / 0)

What a weak reason to switch.

There is this erroneous perception that we will have closure as a party thru pressuring Clinton to step down. There is this great misconception that Clinton supporters will automatically rally behind Obama if Obama supporters force Hillary to quit.

We have just about 30 days to go.

The remaining 7 states after tuesday will be energized like crazy.

There is absolutely no reason for Clinton to quit at this point. Not with all disturbing  stuff about Obama coming up daily.


by labanman on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:38:53 AM EST

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair (none / 0)

Praytell, what NEW, "disturbing," thing about Obama has come up in the last 3 weeks, let along, "every day?"


by TheSilverMonkey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:42:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair (none / 0)

BREAKING: Obama refuses to allow American people to save $10 a month on gas for three month this summer.


_____________
changiness
by lizardbox on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:49:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's lak of vision and contempt for sick people (2.00 / 0)

who are in many cases in desperate straits as many of them cannot buy insurance and medical costs went up 12% last year and more than that in previous years. Someone has to say no to the addicted drug companies and insurance companies and medical 'providers' and its obviously NOT going to be Barack Obama of McCain, Hillary is doing what thet all fear and negotiating prices as a group.

Its the only way to get them down.


http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money
by architek on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:10:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's lak of vision and contempt for sick pe (none / 0)

A mandate won't help those people.


_____________
changiness
by lizardbox on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:23:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair (none / 0)

Your smart ass comments about saving $10 a month look pretty stupid to someone who is struggling to keep his retired mom (who lives on social security) above water.

You people don't give a shit about poor people.


by Dave B on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:16:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair (none / 0)

Ha! "You people". Yours truly is another one of those struggling people, (proudly) supporting both parents. I wasn't poking fun at the $10 you could save, think about it a bit and pepper it a bit of understanding of economics and supply and demand, and you'll see that I was mostly making fun of the extra $10 it will cost above and beyond what you're paying now. I don't ever mean to belittle anyone, if it came across that way, then apologies.


_____________
changiness
by lizardbox on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:22:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair (none / 0)

$10 bucks you save (which you won't--the price has already gone up more than 18 cents since McSame proposed this insanity, and decreasing the price will enhance demand (basic economics) just as we go into the peak summertime gas use period, so it will go up... more... only the cash you didn't save will go into the pockets of Exxon & Co. instead of the highway fund) WON'T be going into maintaining and repairing bridges and roads.

Penny-wise, pound-foolish.  You'll save $10... and dish out more than that in wear and tear on your vehicle(s) from additional maintenance and repair.  Or you'll be looking at some downed (or closed) bridge and cursing because no one fixed it in time.

What happened to a nation that used to understand the value of delayed gratification?

McSame's proposal was--and is--a gimmick.  What I don't begin to understand is why Hillary climbed on that bandwagon.  Is she that foolish, or that desperate?


by ogre on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:00:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't Despair (none / 0)

Hillary is a fighter!

There's no way she loses.

And seeing how Obama snubbed her during the State of the Union, there's no way Hill put him on the ticket.

Too bad Elton John is a US citizen.  He would make a perfect VEEP.


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:47:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Despair (2.00 / 1)

I don't know whether to laugh at this or cry...


Congratulations Steny Hoyer! Our 2008 Chickenshit Leader Of The Year!
by RockvilleLiberal2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:52:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Somebody sounds bitter... (none / 0)

Did she do too well in the interview yesterday?


by catfish1 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:46:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Jury is still out (none / 0)

it's not getting free replays on the other channels.

for example, when Hill said she would obliterate Iran on Good Morning America, that receive alot of free secondary cover.

Nothing yet, from the Billo segment.  But there's one more tonight.  Perhaps it'll contain something provocative, something news cycle.

I know Fox insists they have "independents" but surveys show only 7 percent of their audience voted for Kerry in 2004.  Let me say that again, 7 percent.  I mean there's a very good reason why Hillary has never appeared on O'Reilly - it would have been a waste of her time.  But now, as the underdog, late in the game, she has to through hail-marry passes, and hope lighting strikes.


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:31:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Despair (none / 0)

Comments need tag clouds. This one screams snark.

I hope.


by ogre on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:01:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair (2.00 / 1)

Actually there were other reasons, including supporting a nonpanderer on the gas tax.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:30:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair (none / 0)

So the argument is switching from "the supers can legitimately support whoever they want" and "the delegates can switch at any time, they're not locked" to "it's not legitimate if the supers try to force Hillary to quit"?  I'm just trying to keep track of what the current rational is...

The main argument to this point by many Hillary supporters has been that the supers have every right to decide this primary.  If they decide to do that now rather than later, those that have been arguing that for weeks have NO GROUNDS to complain.


by ThinkerT on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:23:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to Obama (none / 0)

If the party ends the contest by superdelegate fiat before all the primaries have weighed in and by total exclusion of Florida and Michigan, it really will lose my vote forever.  


Lifelong Democrat, civil rights advocate, former volunteer for Dem candidates. Now Independent.
by BPK80 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:43:45 AM EST

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (none / 0)

The party can't end the process by Super Delegate. The Supers don't even vote until August. Hillary would have to drop out for it to end. Just like Huckabee would have had to drop out earlier this year for the Republican primary to end. But that doesn't mean we can't have a damn good idea of who the winner is. If all the Supers came out tomorrow and said they endorsed Obama, what would stop Clinton from carrying on?


by TheSilverMonkey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:58:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (none / 0)

Yes, they don't formally vote until August but if a wave of supers announced support for either candidate (by wave I mean dozens), it would spell doom.  The media would declare the primary over and the remaining states would have skewed turnout.  


Lifelong Democrat, civil rights advocate, former volunteer for Dem candidates. Now Independent.
by BPK80 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:13:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (none / 0)

I doubt it. Even if the votes in the states were skewed, it would not make much difference in the end game. Obama will still have a lead of about 150 pledged delegates give or take say 25 or so.

What's aggravating about your line of argument is that Hillary's only hope at this point is Supers overturning Obama's delegate lead. That's all fine and good and in the rules. As many HRC supporters have argued, Supers are free to make their own judgments. However, now you say if they DO, in fact, make their own judgments you will deny the party your vote or some such thing. If the Supers decide, for whatever reason (maybe the campaign is too negative, or John McCain is getting too much of a free ride in the press) that they should reveal their preferences before voting is done then that's just as fair as them overturning the pledged delegate leader.


by TheSilverMonkey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:23:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (2.00 / 0)


There's a difference between preference now and viability in August.  They are free to be stupid and manipulative and selfserving now.  But the story is that the primary campaign has been undecided.  In August the Party as a whole and the country will have decided between Clinton and Obama.  It would be stupid and selfdestructive for the Convention to nominate the lesser, fading, candidate whatever the delegate tally.

You can pretend that superdelegates are pledged once they endorse a candidate, but they're really not.


by killjoy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:35:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (none / 0)

Stupid and self-destructive to nominate the leader in viturally every single metric used in determining our nominee...good job.  You win over the top post of the day so far...

Might I humbly suggest a new Clinton Theme Song for her campaign...with all credit to the lyrics going to Ned Washington...

When you wish upon a star, makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires will come to you

If your heart is in your dreams, no request is too extreme
When you wish upon a star as dreamers do

(Fate is kind, she brings to those who love
The sweet fulfillment of their secret longing)

Like a bolt out of the blue, fate steps in and sees you thru
When you wish upon a star, your dreams come true


Congratulations Steny Hoyer! Our 2008 Chickenshit Leader Of The Year!
by RockvilleLiberal2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:44:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (none / 0)


Dude, your side is the faith-based one.
by killjoy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:52:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (none / 0)

That's disputable, but my side is also winning handily.

All together now..."Star light, star bright, first star I see tonight, I wish I may, I wish I might have the wish I wish tonight."


Congratulations Steny Hoyer! Our 2008 Chickenshit Leader Of The Year!
by RockvilleLiberal2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:56:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What's aggravating about your line of argument (none / 0)

is you ignore popular vote, which is relevant this time because of the MI and FL debacle.


by catfish1 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:49:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's aggravating about your line of argument (none / 0)

Again, there is no popular vote. The caucus states are not and cannot be included in any popular vote totals. The party will not leave out a bunch of states who followed all the rules just to help Hillary win. It's laughable to think that will happen. It'll be decided on delegate.


by Becky G on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:26:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (none / 0)

If they reveal preferences in an attempt to curtail the primary process and "stop counting the votes," that would disgust me.  


Lifelong Democrat, civil rights advocate, former volunteer for Dem candidates. Now Independent.
by BPK80 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:00:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (none / 0)

Yet it wouldn't disgust you if they pay no attention to the votes and support Hillary later?


by TheSilverMonkey on Fri May 02, 2008 at 01:39:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We could have more than one vote (none / 0)

at the convention. Even once all the superdelegates decide, we could still be left with two nominees with less than 2025 delegates, right?


by catfish1 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:48:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We could have more than one vote (none / 0)

Um.

Only if you manage a near perfect even split between Hillary and Obama--and Edwards 18 delegates don't change their votes, leaving him the power to decide....

That's possible.  So is having a coin toss end with the coin on edge.  Possible--and quite unlikely.


by ogre on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:05:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (none / 0)

Well, that's why they're not coming out en masse right now for Obama.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:33:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (none / 0)


Seems unlikely they ever will.
by killjoy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:36:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (none / 0)

indeed they will continue to come out 1 at a time, drip drip drip and after PR votes on June 3rd, you will notice that boom. Obama is at 2,024


Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."
by TruthMatters on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:39:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (none / 0)


Believe that as long as you can.
by killjoy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:51:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (none / 0)

oh yeah another one of those HRC supporters in a thread about an Obama endorsement who just swears that Tomorrow Tomorrow is the day the supers will all flip to Hillary right?

no no no its after Indiana, just like it would be over on Feb. 5th, no no after Texas and Ohio votes the supes would move! no no its PA after PA votes thats it the last big state the supers will move. no no

now its Indiana, Indiana will be what will force the supers to move. well you know what I can't wait for it to happen. I really can't because me I don't care the nominee so I win either way. but tuesday thats the day huh.


Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."
by TruthMatters on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:03:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support (none / 0)

See my post above - so the argument by Hillary supporters (when that was the only way for her to win) is switching from "the supers can legitimately support whoever they want" and "the delegates can switch at any time, they're not locked" to "it's not legitimate if the supers try to force Hillary to quit"?


by ThinkerT on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:25:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to Obama (2.00 / 0)

This is the most inane logic I've seen in a while, from this superdelegate.  

If a bunch of suits get together and short-circuit the primary before the remaining contests vote and disenfranchise Florida and Michigan, how is that going to "heal" the party?  Nothing would aggravate Hillary's supporters more.  That would create the most irreparable rift imaginable.  

This "letter" on his behalf sounds more like a partisan ploy than a genuine "concern."  


Lifelong Democrat, civil rights advocate, former volunteer for Dem candidates. Now Independent.
by BPK80 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:57:26 AM EST

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (2.00 / 1)

What happened to all of the literally thousands of myDD commenter's that for months on end have insisted that Super Delegates had every right to vote for whoever they wanted to? Just yesterday, I was reading thread after thread of them. Where have they all gone?


by tysonpublic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:19:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (none / 0)

I was wondering the same thing.  If Obama wins with a majority of both pledged and superdelegates... is that not legitimate enough?  If his margin is then large enough that even seating MI and FL as-is does not change the outcome, will the Clinton supporter's still feel robbed and stay home in Novemember?

For the record, I'm an Obama supporter, but I plan on voting for the Democrat in Novemember whatever happens.


by protothad on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:41:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (none / 0)

They have every right to do that.

But to do that en masse for the sole purpose of discontinuing the contest before the remaining 8 primaries and 1 caucus have their say is undemocratic.  


Lifelong Democrat, civil rights advocate, former volunteer for Dem candidates. Now Independent.
by BPK80 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:11:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bullshit (2.00 / 1)

What bullshit. You had no problem with his previous endorsement of Clinton, you suddenly have a problem with his current endorsement of Obama.

Wasn't his previous endorsement short-circuiting the primaries, even though it was that endorsement which contrasted the pledged delegates?

Now he's going along with the results of the primaries to endorse the candidate that the primaries produced -- and that's suddenly "short-circuiting them". Not before, but now.

Yet another Clinton supporter that proved himself a liar. What an amazing surprise.


by Aris Katsaris on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:36:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bullshit (none / 0)

I'm talking about the logic in his letter to colleagues that positions him to conclude the primary process should be neded and short circuited, not the endorsement itself.  

"Yet another Clinton supporter that proved himself a liar... You had no problem with his previous endorsement of Clinton."

I never commented on his earlier endorsement of Clinton.  Can you explain what it is exactly that you believe I "lied" about?

Your reaction is really over the top.  


Lifelong Democrat, civil rights advocate, former volunteer for Dem candidates. Now Independent.
by BPK80 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:04:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (none / 0)

Terrific.  This is a huge, resounding endorsement . Fantastic news to come home to.

This is well reasoned and smart endorsement, and one that has a huge impact from many angles.  First, switching is an incredibly strong message in and of itself.  Second, this guys is from Indiana and has tons of clout, third he is as much a Clinton insider as they come. And for he is a huge DNC insider. About the only thing better would be Carville switching.

Don't get me wrong, I still believe we must let the entire primary play out.  But it is nice to see some of these folks finally exercising better and sanity.  Most important, it is nice to see the party begin to remember to keep their eye on the prize, which is keeping republicans out of the White House.

And who knows, if Clinton keeps having all these defections, we may see Obama reach the threshold before the convention after all.

Going to bed and sleeping like a baby.


Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~Thomas A. Edison
by mattjfogarty on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:06:28 AM EST

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (none / 0)

It's not a good move.

Healing the party doesn't mean stepping all over the other half and silencing them completely.  Trying to deny the primary process to play out and preempting it in favor of Obama will do more damage than waiting until the primaries have ended and the MI/FL issues are resolved.  


Lifelong Democrat, civil rights advocate, former volunteer for Dem candidates. Now Independent.
by BPK80 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:15:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (none / 0)

That's why I said I absolutely feel the entire process needs to play out.  Let every remaining state vote.  This is critical at this point.

But this guy switching is not preempting anything or denying any part of the process, it is him exercising his right to vote for whom he sees fit for the reasons he feels important, and it is equally his right to try and sway anyone he wants, just as it is the right of people like you and me to blog our opinions and hope we influence someone to vote for the candidate we support.

But it is unfair to expect SD's to wait silently in the wings until some pre-ordained moment when someone feels it is finally OK for them to speak their minds.

Let every SD vote for whom they want when they want.  Let every state have their vote.  And yes, I do think FL and MI are already resolved it is just up to the DNC to make it final.


Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~Thomas A. Edison
by mattjfogarty on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:39:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (none / 0)

I agree with you actually.  Its fine for him to change his endorsement, but if his goal is party unity, he could have framed his reasons in a better way.  Personally, I want Obama to win, but it should be in a way that feels legitimate to most Democrats.  That means letting the last few primaries play out.

Whatever happens, I'm voting Dem in Novemember.


by protothad on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:48:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

OMG!! (none / 0)

I wonder what kind of personal pressure Axlerod put on Andrews.

This has to be blackmail.  There's no other explanation.  Why would Andrews jump from the winning side in the last inning.  Unless, he was a infiltrator, return home - coming in from out of the cold.


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:39:57 AM EST

Re: OMG!! (none / 0)

Axelrod can afford the 30 silverlings to create even more Judases like Richardson and Andrews, I suppose...


by micha1976 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:00:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG!! (none / 0)

It's been a long time since Clinton was on the 'winning side'

Like...before Iowa.

This is good news.  On to Tuesday.


John McCain, maverick
by lojasmo on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:41:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG!! (none / 0)

Winning side? Clinton has never been on the winning side, since Iowa.

Even if you count everything from Missouri for Clinton, and don't give any of the uncommitted ones to Obama, he's still ahead.


by Aris Katsaris on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:41:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (none / 0)

All I can say is that if the quantitative indicators showing Hillary is the stronger candidate are ignored, and Obama loses to McCain, the Democratic civil war is going to be vicious, with the Party perhaps not surviving it.

For 40+ years I have been proud to be a Democrat, but it seems we are lemmings running toward the cliff.


by Bob H on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:43:46 AM EST

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (2.00 / 0)

When Hillary becomes President of the United States, I hope she remembers all these people who smiled in her face and said they would support her and then stabbed her in the back.

The only divisiveness in this campaign has come from the Obama campaign.

There are going to be a lot Dems ass-out when Hillary becomes President.


by stefystef on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:09:31 AM EST

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (2.00 / 2)

A call for a Nixonian Clinton WH!  And you're a Democrat?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:32:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Clinton DNC Chair Switches Support to O (none / 0)

Stabbed Hillary in the back?? I thought I read he endorsed Obama?