A New Stage in the Campaign?

In the flow of endorsements in recent days and weeks -- and indeed over the past few months as well -- one thing we haven't seen is very many Senate candidates come out and endorse in the presidential race. There have been a few -- both Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick in Oregon have endorsed Barack Obama, for instance. But by and large, top-tier Senate candidates have refrained from wading into the presidential contest, whether out of fear of alienating half of the party or a desire not to make press in that way. Yet today, an endorsement from a Democratic Senate hopeful and Congressman (and thus a superdelegate to boost) for Obama.

Congressman Tom Allen is throwing his support behind Sen. Barack Obama as the Democratic presidential nominee.

Allen, a superdelegate to this summer's Democratic National Convention, said Monday he believes Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton are both "supremely qualified" to be president. Allen has been friends for decades with Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton.

But Allen says most of the nation's primary voters have spoken, and that the time has come to bring a "graceful end" to the primary campaign.

Thus far, people like Mark Warner and Tom Udall and Mark Udall -- the top-tier of Democratic Senate hopefuls -- have not come out and endorsed either candidate for President. As alluded to before, in the eyes of most Senate campaigns, the risks of such an endorsement outweigh the potential benefits. Or at least they did.

It remains to be seen if the Allen endorsement foreshadows more to come -- if it is a dipping of the toe in water, in a sense -- or if it simply represents one American coming to a public decision about his views on the race for the Democratic nomination. In the coming weeks, we will have to wait to see if any more Udalls or Warners come out and publicly support either Obama or Hillary Clinton. But if others do follow in Allen's footsteps, we could see a new stage of coalescing in the Democratic presidential primary in which the campaign class of the party, as well as candidates who will actually face the voters in competitive general elections in the fall, are ready to see one nominee emerge.



Display:


Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

To be fair, there was an inkling of this when Mark Udall very publicly and very harshly criticized Clinton on the gas tax.
So even though he has not endorsed, he did take a chance at alienating part of his base (if your theory is to be believed which I do) even before IN/NC.
by Benjaminomeara on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:56:50 AM EST

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 1)

I think last week's 20 superdelegate gain for Obama (compared to Hillary's 1.5) is pretty much sign that this has already moved on.

I would be very surprised if there wasn't a deluge in the works to mitigate any loss in WV or KY -- especially since Hillary's best win in WV, (a gain of 13-18 delegates) for example, would still net her fewer delegates than Obama has recieved from supers alone since last Tuesday.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:58:02 AM EST

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 2)

Although Barack Obama claims to be the Democratic nominee, West Virginia Democratic voters are marching to a different drummer, as Hillary Clinton leads Obama by 36 points among likely Democratic voters, according to a poll released today by Suffolk University. Sixty percent of voters polled preferred Clinton to Obama (24 percent).

Poll Predicts 36-Point Clinton Landslide in W. Virginia

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/storie s.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-12 -2008/0004810921&EDATE=

And HRC is creaming Obama in Kentucky:
http://www.kentucky.com/254/story/402089 .html


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:13:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 1)

And as stated above, he's gotten enough superdelegates in the past week to negate any victory she gains in WV. She can win by 99% in WV and it won't matter.


by PSUdan on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:25:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

Number of convincing explanations the Obama campaign has given for why he won't be competitive with Clinton in West Virginia or KY: 0


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:37:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, there're reasons. (2.00 / 2)

Just that discussing them's a ban-worthy offense here on MyDD.


John McCain: He flunked ECON 101.
by Shem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:40:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, there're reasons. (none / 0)

Show me the link from the campaign.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:49:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, there're reasons. (2.00 / 1)

Why would you need a link from the campaign - you know perfectly well why the hard-working white voters in WV will not vote for Obama in sufficient numbers to win.  And still the question is, so what?


by interestedbystander on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:36:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, there're reasons. (none / 0)

Didn't think you or the campaign had any reasons -- except that Hillary is the better candidate.

Number of convincing explanations the Obama campaign has given for why he won't be competitive with Clinton in West Virginia or KY: 0


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:15:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, there're reasons. (none / 0)

Number of reasons Hillary Clinton will lose the Democratic Party nomination for President (despite huge wins in WV and KY):  2209.


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:25:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, there're reasons. (none / 0)

Number of reasons Obama will lose the Presidency to McCain if he's out nominee: 270.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:37:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, there're reasons. (none / 0)

Heh.  I knew you'd try that route next.  Just another dead end, KnowVox.  The last of the electability arguments are withering on the vine.

You, along with a small minority of other "dead enders" will be sitting in the outhouse wiping eachothers, uh, tears, while the remainder of the sensible HRC supporters will (at Hillary's urging) coalesce around Obama.   Together, we'll soundly defeat McCain in the GE.

Should you grow weary of the smell in the outhouse, feel free to join us.  We'll save a seat for you.


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:51:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, there're reasons. (none / 0)

We won't be going to the White House if Obama's the nominee.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:55:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, there're reasons. (none / 0)

Wow, that's totally awesome!  What about Obama average polling 5 points ahead in PA?  Or Obama's very real chances in NV, MI, OH, VA?

Just go back to suggesting that BO won't win CA, NY, NJ like you were downthread.  Oh wait, did you just crap on your own argument by poting this pretty little map?  Ooopsies!


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:22:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, there're reasons. (2.00 / 1)


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:29:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, there're reasons. (none / 0)

That's your response?  Heh, you get funnier with every post.


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:39:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, there're reasons. (none / 0)

Oh my Lord!!! She's got a graphic!!!  Quick everybody kneel before the graphic.  I mean there are all sorts of things in this world that you can just pull out of your ass.  I mean you can flat out make shit up sometimes.  But not a graphic, no way!  Those are always true.  Given the perpetual truthiness of graphics and KnowVox's track record of accuracy we're faced with only one choice.  We Obama supporters had better all just give up and go ahead and motivate record republican turn out by nominating the person that they hate most in the world at a time when they would otherwise sit on their asses and laugh at John McCain whom a lot of them don't like much.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:06:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, there're reasons. (none / 0)

Thought Hillary had said all that was needed.  I'd say, unlike other states in the Union, WV and KY REALLY want to knock 18 cents a gallon off their gas bill.  Yeah, that's it.

Now can Hillary explain, despite her advantages, being behind in delegates, popular vote and states won.  Because if delegates are the measure, and they are, WV and KY deserve to vote, but the math remains the same.  And please stop the "all the way to convention" line.  We can, I deeply believe, form something other than a circular firing squad.

I know she's a fighter, but it's time to put that fight to work for the nominee after the primaries are over.


by niksder on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:25:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

Amount of impact KY and WV will have on the outcome at this poit:

Also 0.

Just like North Carolina more than made up for Pennsylvania, Oregon will more than make up for WV and Kentucky.

Hell in the time since North Carolina the superdelegate break out has been about +20 in Obama's favor.  I doubt that the NAFTA lady  nets that many out of those 2 itty bitty cuspid deprived states.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:42:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

lay off the toothless stuff (none / 0)

There is really no reason to make fun of people that can't afford adequate dental care.

Why would you do that?


by emptythreatsfarm on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:35:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lay off the toothless stuff (none / 0)

Do you make a habit of calling observation making fun of something?  Why would you do that?


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:06:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lay off the toothless stuff (none / 0)

Good job if pivoting and avoiding  the point though.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:08:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lay off the toothless stuff (none / 0)

I'm not pivoting.  I actually agree that the results from Kentucky and West Virginia are pretty much moot, although I'm dreaded the media frenzy if she wins both by 30+.

However, you need to be honest with yourself and admit that mentioning "cuspid deprived" people is not simply observation, it's an unnecessary slam on people that Obama needs to work to appeal to.

You could make the observation that people in these states have been screwed over by the coal industry and that poverty has been maddeningly persistent in some of their communities, but I guess calling them "toothless" sounds clever.


by emptythreatsfarm on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:18:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lay off the toothless stuff (none / 0)

I don't NEED to do anything because you think that I should for starters.

It is true that WV got screwed by the collapse of the coal industry.  I happen to be the step-grandson  of the man who used to be the foremost expert on mineral rights in West Virginia.  He passed away 6 years ago from cancer.  The guy had saved every issue of National Geographic ever and had them hard bound into a book per year.

I am well aware of what's happened to West Virginia, probably in much greater detail than you'd like to know.  

I'll rephrase just for you:

It is unimpressive that Hilary will win there.  The poor, poorly educated, impoverished, white, upper middle aged and older are Hilary's demographic.  

There, and without nary a reference to cupids or  Clark W. Griswold's brother-in-law.  Happy?


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:50:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lay off the toothless stuff (none / 0)

So let me understand this.

1.  The "poor, poorly educated, impoverished, white, upper middle aged and older" are members of a demographic that has been supporting Clinton (particularly in Appalachia)

2.  It would be nice if these people would vote for Obama, because even though the probability of WV going blue may be low, it never hurts in an election to get more votes than the other person.

3.  Obama has not been doing well with this demographic, in part because of racism, and in part because he is perceived as an outsider and an elitist.

4.  We both want Obama to win in November.

5.  It's a good idea to write off a couple of state's populations and just for kicks, call them "toothless".

Am I missing something here?  

How old are you?


by emptythreatsfarm on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:08:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lay off the toothless stuff (none / 0)

A whole lot older than I need to be to understand that racists deserve no respect.  I have no interest in trying to do better in the racist vote.

Have you ever heard it said that not every republican is a racist, but ever racist is a republican?  I have always said: "No, every republican is a racist because they are willing to tolerate the racists in order to gain a majority.  Failing to tell that wing of the party to STFU constitutes, if not agreement, at least tacit approval through tolerance."

I don't see it any different for our party.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:23:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lay off the toothless stuff (none / 0)

If you don';t want Obamna to try to appeal to these voters, you are an unbelievable moron.


by doyenne49 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:01:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lay off the toothless stuff (none / 0)

Maybe some day I'll be as cool as you and I can accept racist as my bedfellows and run around calling people morons.

My you're a wonderful person.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:38:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lay off the toothless stuff (none / 0)

BO can be who he is.  I will be who I am.  I won't have anything to do with racists.  Does that meet with your moral approval?  I'd hate to have to lose sleep tonight.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:56:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lay off the toothless stuff (none / 0)

I hope you never sleep again.


by doyenne49 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:23:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lay off the toothless stuff (none / 0)

I know damn me for not cuddling up to racists.  Do you see where you are right now?  Pissed at someone for not embracing racists?! Reevaluate doyenne49.  I have a hard time believing that you're like that.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:39:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 1)

The point is, Obama doesn't need to win every state to win the nomination (bannable reasons aside).

Does Clinton have a good explanation for why she lost Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Louisiana, Washington, Maryland, Virginia, and Utah by so much?

Race?  Oh, right, that thing I can't talk about for my candidate.  Silliness of that argument aside (since African American voters are voters), I'm guessing race wasn't the factor in...almost all of those states.

Caucuses?  Oh, right, those don't count for some reason, even when the margin of victory is 2-1.  Not that that explains all of those states either.

Look, I know you think Clinton's the better candidate, and I know you have real reasons to support her.  But at this point dissing the process just isn't productive.  Work to change it for next time, and work to beat McCain this time.


by randomscientist on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:01:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

From Jake Tapper:

Why Shouldn't Obama Win West Virginia?

1.8 million Americans live in West Virginia, 665,234 of them are registered Democrats. It's bordered by two states Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois won -- Virginia and Maryland, and two states Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, won -- Pennsylvania and Ohio.  (Its fifth border state, Kentucky, holds its primary on May 20.)

The Mountain State ranks 50th in median household income, $31,008; 50th in persons in the state 25 years or older with a bachelor's degree or more, 15.3%; and 48th in per capita income, $23,995.

The state is 96% white and 3.5% African-American.

The idea of Democrats winning in West Virginia is perfectly sane. Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans two to one -- approximately 60% to 30%.

The state has two Democratic senators -- Bob Byrd and Jay Rockefeller -- and a Democratic governor, Joe Manchin. Two out of its three members of Congress are Democrats. The state went for Michael Dukakis in 1988, Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.

Sure, with few African-Americans or college-educated Democrats, this does not seem like an "Obama" state the way these primaries have been playing out.

But Obama needs to be able to convince voters like these that he cares about them, shares their values, and will change their lives.

John F. Kennedy shocked the political world in 1960 by winning here, proving that a Catholic could win in a Protestant, heavily evangelical state. Why is it so crazy that Obama could win in West Virginia? Or at least not lose it 2-to-1?

If these Democrats vote for Clinton, the presumptive loser, overwhelmingly -- as is predicted -- that indicates a real problem for Obama. I know the delegate math is close to dispositive for Clinton, but tomorrow's butt-stomping seems to me like it should merit some serious hand-wringing among Democrats.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/05/why-shouldnt-ob.html


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:39:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

Obama won a whole bunch of states that weren't demographically perfect for him.  Remind me again what states Hilary won where she didn't have exactly her most favorable demographic?  I believe the words that schmuck Tucker Carleson (wow is he annoying) used were (I'm paraphrasing): "You'd have to go to the arctic to get any whiter than Iowa." Iowa's pretty rural too.   He won there.  Remember?  Hilary was... um ... third on day one.

I was displeased to see my original home state of Ohio go to Hilary after she just flat out made up some shit about NAFTA, but I was not surprised at all.  It is exactly her demographic; older, low wage, white's, with out college education.  My stepmother is from a tiny little town in WV.  It's not far from Morgantown. (their claim to fame is an NHL puck factory)  If you're a tree hugger, and I am,  you will never find prettier country.  West Virginia, like Ohio, is the perfect Hilary demographic only if conforms to an even greater degree to her base.  Kentucky?  Samey. Samey.  

So were did she take one from Obama in his own demographic?


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:27:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

Number of comments cut and pasted from Mark Halperin: 1


We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)
by Newcomer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:09:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

The most recent polling available says that you are wrong on all counts.  In other words what you are saying is the opposite of the truth.  

http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/Polling Unit/1064a208Election.pdf

Try getting at least some of your information from something other than Hillary spin.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:43:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 2)

Neither KY nor WV have voted dem since 2000, so I wonder about theie importance in the GE...however, consider this.

Even if Barack is underperforming there as he moves to the GE, the fact is that when Hillary gets behind him (and she WILL as she is a principled, honorable and dedicated democrat...to suggest any other outcome shows a fundamentla lack of understanding of HRC), her support may well translate to support for Obama.

Why?  Because her hubby carried the state twice (once because of Perot splitting the vote, and once because Bob Dole...like JOHN McCAIN will...ran a feckless old style campaign) and her endorsement will carry wieght.

Moreover, Obama will soon select a VP, which will aid him.  Bteween these things and the sheer amount of TIME... we'll be just fine.


by a gunslinger on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:30:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 1)

"and she WILL as she is a principled, honorable and dedicated democrat...to suggest any other outcome shows a fundamentla lack of understanding of HRC),"

Then I fundamentally don't understand her, either...  I have grave doubts about her truly supporting Obama in the GE or afterwards...  I hope you are right and I am wrong...


by LordMike on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:05:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

I hope that you are wrong too.  I don't think that you are.  The most recent polling suggests that we'll be just fine without the NAFTA lady anyway.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:46:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

oops, forgot to paste the linky:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/Polling Unit/1064a208Election.pdf


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:47:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's nice for her (2.00 / 1)

and her supporters.


I trust Senator Obama.
by GFORD on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:36:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

 So what, after the racist states vote Obama is still going to the nominee. Even if Hillary were the nominee neither one of these states would vote democratic in November.
Get over it, Obama is our nominee, after may 20th all the supers will get on board.  
by JOEL1954 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:37:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 1)

Holy crap!  She might net enough delegates to go from losing very very badly in the nomination process to only losing very badly.

For a Clinton supporter who has spent month talking about "big states" you sure seem to have lost any sense of proportion.  

That's pretty honest of you as usual.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:37:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 1)

Obama beat Hillary 2 to 1 in Georgia -- a state no Democrat has won since Clinton.

Obviously she's a flawed candidate who blah blah blah. Doesn't matter. It's over. Have a Dr. Pepper.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:38:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

Have an arsenic. Have two.


by doyenne49 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:03:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

You're still clinging to that crap?  Wow.  

If the McCain surrogate won KY, WV, and PR each 65% to 35% and then tied Obama in each of the remaining states, he would still only need 24% of the remaining SDs.  Get it?  That's if Obama doesn't win another contest.

Wake up.  Denial doesn't change reality.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:52:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Too little.Too late. (none / 0)


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:36:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

Great but one state doesn't decide the nomination...


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:27:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

and all this time you thought your candidate was entitled.  Guess which of us will get our way?


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:55:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 1)

Has anyone here been keeping a daily record of super delegates coming out to announce for both Hillary and Obama?
I'd like to know when was the last single day that Hillary got more super Ds announcing for her than for Obama.
Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie
by toyomama on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:58:55 AM EST

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 1)

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/ may have that information somewhere on the site.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:01:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

this should help (2.00 / 1)

http://www.politico.com/superdelegates/l atestupdates.html


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:01:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 3)

Notice too that the very very low trickle she still gets come into two categories: add-ons (fair enough) and people who endorse her and explicitly justify it by saying that's how their CD voted.
None of them ever mentions the electability meme which is ironic considering this is what she is basing her pitch to them on.

by Benjaminomeara on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:03:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've notice that too. (none / 0)

The ones coming out for Obama talk about what a great leader he is, what a great president he will be, etc.  The ones for Hillary say we have two great candidates, Hillary has worked really hard and their district voted for her so they are endorsing her.


I trust Senator Obama.
by GFORD on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:39:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've notice that too. (none / 0)

No, the ones who come out for Obama all say they think it's "time for Democrats to come together" as if that's going to make Hillary and her supporters shut up and go home.

The Obama campaign will have a lot of 'splainin to do to working-class voters who feel alienated from the Obama bandwagon, to women, wo rightly feel they have been disrespected by Obama and the media taking heads, and to good Democrats who've been called racists for opposing Obama.

Judging from the level of vitriol and anger directed at Hillary and her supporters by the Obamabots here, they really don't care one way or the other where Hillary or her supporters go.

Yeah, Obama's a "uniter" all right.  Except his model is to unite his supporters, and the hell with everyone else.

Obama has done more to divide this party along racial, age, and class lines than any politician since Ted Kennedy took his case to the floor of the convention 28 years ago.  I have never seen the party this split, this angry, this frustrated, this hurt.

I can't even guess if it will heal.  I do know it's going to leave painful, inflamed scar tissue for a long, long time.


by dembluestates on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:52:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm an Obama supporter and I (2.00 / 1)

do care about Hillary supporters.  I'm glad to see they are getting over the disappointment and moving on.  It's always disappointing when the candidates we support aren't the ones chosen.

You are not the designated spokesperson for Hillary supporters.  You are just someone who hates Obama -- do whatever you like.


I trust Senator Obama.
by GFORD on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:04:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've notice that too. (2.00 / 1)

Exactly what disrespect has Obama shown women? Having the gall to win the nomination?

And do you even see the hypocrisy of denouncing anger at Hillary and her supporters and at the same time calling people Obamabots?


Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.
by Obama Independent on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:29:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've notice that too. (none / 0)

Excellent question.  I've asked this many times myself and still haven't heard an answer.

How was Obama disrespectful to women?  Was he just supposed to let her win?  I don't get it.


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:35:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

She has not had a better SD day than him since before the voting began in Iowa where she was... um... third on day one.

It wasn't until Pennsylvania that she had a better day than him on delegates of any variety and that has, so far, been the only day where it's happened.

You'd have thought that Ohio would have been one of those days, but it wasn't as Texas gave him more delegates than her (which means that, by the only metric that counts, BO won Texas) and California finalized it's numbers that day resulting in adjustments that negated her delegate gains from what we're now finding out was only a single digit win in Ohio (and she had to lie about NAFTA to get that).  

For those of you keeping track, Ohio's popular vote was 29,000 votes more favorable to Barack than originally estimated. That makes BO's popular vote lead close to three quarters of a million.  It's not a valid metric in the nomination process anyway, but that exceedingly dishonest argument is dead in the water too now.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:07:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 2)

I wonder if CNN and MSNBC are even going to their "election central" format for WV's results, or whether they'll cover the news generally, announce Clinton's victory when the polls close and just pick up her speech when it happens.


by Adam B on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:59:24 AM EST

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 1)

Chuck Todd said this morning the networks have apparently decided to cover it as a regular election night (sigh) which is why Obama scheduled his GE event in Cape Girardeau.


by Benjaminomeara on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:00:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 0)

First Florida and Michigan don't count. Now KY & WVa don't count.  Not a winning strategy for the White House.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:16:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 5)

FL and MI disenfranchised their own voters with Harold Ickes' full support.  As for KY/WV, it's not that their results don't count -- they do -- it's that they're neither newsworthy nor outcome-affecting.


by Adam B on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:25:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 0)

FL & MI votes count. Try winning the White House without them or W Va and KY.

Something tells me we'll need those 34 million voters come November.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:35:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Glad to hear you say "We" (2.00 / 1)

and looking forward to fighting alongside you!

-chris


"A ship in port is safe, but that is not what ships are for. Sail out to sea and do new things." Admiral Grace Hopper, computer pioneer
by chrisblask on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:01:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Glad to hear you say "We" (none / 0)

Me and 34 million voters the Obama campaign wants to discount.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:19:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Glad to hear you say "We" (none / 0)

That would be the fault of the respective legislatures not Obama. You do realize that MI & FL broke the rules right?


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:28:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama AWOL (none / 0)

Senator Barack Obama

Obama for America
P.O. Box 8102
Chicago, IL 60680

Dear Senator Obama,

This has been an historic and exciting campaign. Millions of new voters have been brought into the process and their enthusiasm for the Democratic Party and the principles for which you and I have fought and continue to fight is unprecedented.

One of the foremost principles of our party is that citizens be allowed to vote and that those votes be counted. That principle is not currently being applied to the nearly 2.5 million people who voted in primaries in Florida and Michigan. Whoever emerges as the Democratic nominee will be hamstrung in the general election if a fair and quick resolution is not reached that ensures that the voices of these voters are heard. Our commitment now to this goal could be the difference between winning and losing in November.

I have consistently said that the votes cast in Florida and Michigan in January should be counted. We cannot ignore the fact that the people in those states took the time to be a part of this process and to make their preferences known. When efforts were untaken by leaders in those states to hold revotes to ensure that they had a voice in selecting our nominee, I supported those efforts. In Michigan, I supported a legislative effort to hold a revote that the Democratic National Committee said was in complete compliance with the party's rules. You did not support those efforts and your supporters in Michigan publically opposed them. In Florida a number of revote options were proposed. I am not aware of any that you supported. In 2000, the Republicans won an election by successfully opposing a fair counting of votes in Florida. As Democrats, we must reject any proposals that would do the same.

Your commitment to the voters of these states must be clearly stated and your support for a fair and quick resolution must be clearly demonstrated.

I am asking you to join me in working with representatives from Florida and Michigan and the Democratic National Committee to arrive at a solution that honors the votes of the millions of people who went to the polls in Florida and Michigan. It is not enough to simply seat their representatives at the convention in Denver. The people of these great states, like the people who have voted and are to vote in other states, must have a voice in selecting our party's nominee.

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:42:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama AWOL (none / 0)

What's your point?


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:43:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama AWOL (none / 0)

Obama hasn't lifted a finger to keep from disenfranchsing these voters.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:46:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama AWOL (none / 0)

He agreed to the deal that the MI legislature proposed. Clinton said no.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:47:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama AWOL (none / 0)

Well, yeah, but so?  If HRC can't get eleventy gabillion delegates out of it, then NO DEAL.  Obama is a disenfranchiser!  ;)


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:56:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama AWOL (2.00 / 1)

I know I know. How silly of me.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:02:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama AWOL (none / 0)

.... and KnowVox goes silent...


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:10:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Glad to hear you say "We" (none / 0)

I am one of those 34M, and I wish the DNC and my state hadn't told me they don't want my vote last year.

But we will try to forget that blind foolishness and move on to win the White House.

You?

-chris


"A ship in port is safe, but that is not what ships are for. Sail out to sea and do new things." Admiral Grace Hopper, computer pioneer
by chrisblask on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:50:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 1)

So the DNC should only enforce its rules against states that don't count?  Which are those?


by Adam B on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:11:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

Sorry, but 34 million voters count.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:20:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

Too bad Harold Ickes said that they didn't count in the primary!


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:43:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

Why is is that whenever anybody states an irrefutable fact such as this, I hear the sound of crickets chirping in Clintonland?


John McCain the flip-flopper...
by chinapaulo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:34:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

By what means do you suggest the DNC enforce its rules for scheduling primaries?


by Adam B on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:13:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

How about: with an eye to actually winning in November? That might be a nice start.


by doyenne49 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:04:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

I have no idea what that means.  If an "important" state wants to go ahead of Iowa, let 'em?


by Adam B on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:38:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

Why didn't Hillary campaign there?  


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:13:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

Jesus Christ, I sometimes have to sit back and marvel at the tripe the Clinton supporters still try and fling as if it was remotely relevant.

The reason FL and MI aren't counted is that they moved their primary up too far against party rules. The reason they moved their primaries up is that late primaries, like KY and WV, usually don't affect the nomination. KY and WV kept their primaries late, and as such will not affect the nomination.

This isn't difficult, nor is it sinister. This is simply how the system is designed to work. Get over it.

by Jay R on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:08:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

Get over yourself. Get over yourself NOW. Immediately. Please.


by doyenne49 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:05:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

Lots of substance in that comment.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:15:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 1)

Thanks.  The good news is that all those CNN monitors and terminals work; when the pundits get bored they can surf the 'net.


by Adam B on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:23:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL (none / 0)

I just got mental picture of camera shot from behind -- pundits playing online poker.  


I trust Senator Obama.
by GFORD on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:42:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 1)

It'll take all of 5 minutes to announce Hillary winning. Then come the talking heads saying "it doesn't matter," then the speeches. Hillary will ask for donation, Obama will talk big about the general.

Then it's back to Larry King for a Star Jones interview or something equally lame. Set the TIVO!


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:40:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I expect Wolff B. (none / 0)

to try to start some kind of conversation going about the demographics or something.  That's his job isn't it?


I trust Senator Obama.
by GFORD on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:44:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

Hillary may have a surprise in store if people don't turn out because they know it's over.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:39:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

I had the same thought.  Depressed turn out wouldn't move it to a BO win, but it WILL effect her incredibly dishonest attempt to make use of a popular vote metric since a small turn out won't net her much.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:19:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

Plying the threadbare expectations game which Hillary has sucked so much oxygen from, if she doesn't by 20-30% it will be a loss for her.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:25:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Go Maine! (none / 0)

n/t


by vadasz on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:00:32 PM EST

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 2)

Expect a bunch on Wednesday to blunt Hillary's WV pickup. There might be several tomorrow too, so the media can balance the stories.


by elrod on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:00:58 PM EST

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 2)

At least one from ID coming later today (State party chair)


by Benjaminomeara on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:04:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

Yep.  Just announced it a moment ago.


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:41:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

That makes a net of +25 SDs since North Carolina.  Both WV and KY have already been negated.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:21:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 1)

They probably see no reason at this point for any elected official or candidate to risk alienating any constituents when in 3 weeks they can just follow the herd and endorse the winner after the last state (commonwealth in the case of PR) votes. I am sure some would prefer a concession first so their is absolutely zero risk whatsoever.


by hankg on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:04:20 PM EST

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 1)

Well, unless of course the SD has been for Obama all along and just was staying silent for electoral reasons. But is still DYING to endorse him.

Besides, while Obama does not practice the retaliatory/loyalty kind of politics as forcefully as the Clintons, there is something to be said about being early on the bandwagon or being one of the lasts to board.


by Benjaminomeara on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:06:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

Everyone makes their own politicl calculations about the risk reward scenarios. It's a little late to be 'early' now.


by hankg on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:09:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (none / 0)

True, but pretty soon we'll see a race to not be Obama delegate number 2026.  #2026 doesn't always curry as much favor as precious # 2025.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:25:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 1)

SuperD's can do the math:

By a majority of more than 2 to 1 in Electoral College strength, the Democratic voters of the Swing States prefer Hillary Clinton.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:04:59 PM EST

Re: A New Stage in the Campaign? (2.00 / 4)

<shaking head sadly>


by Benjaminomeara on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:07:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Add VA and NC n/t (2.00 / 2)


by parahammer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:12:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Add VA and NC (none / 0)

Don't think so.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:23:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Add VA and NC (2.00 / 3)

Move the goalposts.


by parahammer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:25:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OK (none / 0)

Clearly, the voters of solidly Blue States agree with voters in the Swing States, overwhelmingly preferring Clinton as the Democratic nominee.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:53:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK (2.00 / 1)

Come on dude, your "methodology" is completely bankrupt.  Picking a random sampling of states from a category that favors your candidate of choice proves nothing.  

I prefer the counting of pledged delegates that include The United States of America.  

Obama:  1,590.5
Clinton:  1,426.5


"I am like a Rorschach test...even if people find me disappointing ultimately, they might gain something." -Barack Obama
by tastycakes on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:20:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK (2.00 / 1)

That's not a fair metric to Clinton, because it doesn't produce a win for her.


by Frood on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:42:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK (none / 0)

Except Obama beasts McCAin in CA and Hillary doesn't.


by interestedbystander on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:57:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lol, crazy new metrics. (none / 0)


by grass on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:00:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK (none / 0)

Looking at Table 2:

Does anyone seriusly think Obama will have much  trouble against McCain in the states in the Clinton column? CA, NY, NJ, RI and MA?

This strikes me as one of the most bogus of numerous bogus arguments. Yeah, I know there was one poll a few weeks ago showing McCain and Obama close in MA, but that's a clear outlier. And I'm waiting to see even a shred of evidence that Obama will have a problem in any of the other four blue states.


by Astigmatist on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:27:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK (none / 0)

He will lose Florida for sure. He will probably lose Ohio. He could lose Pennsylvania. Do you really think a Dem candidate will get to the White House losing two of those three states? If so, you're dumb.


by doyenne49 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:07:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]