Delegates matter

It's pretty clear why Clinton is staying in the race: delegates. And it's also clear now that Florida and Michigan will have delegates that count. Even Obama is now saying that Florida's delegates will be seated prior to the convention:

Barack Obama promised a group of uncommitted superdelegates today that he would seat Florida's delegation at the Democratic National Convention this summer.

``He assured us that Florida delegates will be at the convention and they'll have their party hats on,'' reported South Florida Congressman Tim Mahoney, one of the uncommitted superdelegates.

This appears to be the first time Obama, the front-runner for the nomination, has made such a clear, definite promise. Hillary Clinton, his rival for the nomination, has made the pledge several times.

Obama's got his caveats:
...Mahoney said Obama ``still has concerns that the primary didn't reflect how well he could have done if he had campaigned in the state.''

...Just how those delegates would be counted - based on the Jan. 29 primary results or some other formula - is yet to be decided.

``Seat the Florida delegation, that's the upshot,'' Hastings said. ``They can do it any way they want to.''

A proposal is about to come forward from Florida, "recognizing all, or part, of Florida's 211 delegates."

As for Michigan, a proposal has been close, but it is being blocked by Clinton:

Michigan Democrats on Wednesday voted to back a plan that would give Clinton 69 delegates -- four fewer than the 73 she gained by winning the state's Jan. 15 primary. Obama would get 59 pledged delegates even though he took his name off the ballot, forcing his supporters to vote for Uncommitted.

Clinton campaign spokesman Isaac Baker said Thursday the campaign won't support any proposal that gives Clinton fewer delegates than she earned by winning the primary. The New York senator trails Obama in the race for the nomination by about 150 delegates, and is seeking to close the gap with delegates from Florida and Michigan.

"This proposal does not honor the 600,000 votes that were cast in Michigan's January primary. Those votes must be counted," Baker said.

Michigan Democratic Party spokeswoman Elizabeth Kerr said Baker's assertion that the 69-59 split doesn't take the primary results into account is incorrect.

Clinton does seem to have the upper hand here, at least for now. The Obama campaign would like to end the fiasco, as shown by Obama's nod to Florida, and would like to move over the top in delegates. Clinton's position that she will not give up a delegate that she's gotten through the votes already counted, is also, like it or not, a strong argument.

The upshot of all of this is that talk of 2025 delegates being the number needed for the nomination is incorrect. Both sides are now agreeing that FL and MI will be seated prior to the convention. Whether it will be the full 2209, or somewhere in-between, isn't yet clear.

Dan Balz has a good read on the scenarios left for Clinton.

Clinton will continue on in the remaining states, trying to limit her own super delegates from flipping to Obama, and keeping the remaining ones from choosing. She will focus on gaining as many possible pledged-delegates in the remaining states, and in the MI and FL deals. It'd be best for all concerned, to wrap up FL and MI on the 31st of May, but whether that's doable is in the details.

Bowers has a look at what the delegate spread could be with the above MI proposal and FL being seated, and Obama ends with about a 100 seat pledged-delegate advantage. There are an additional 217 delegates that will also be chosen by early June, leaving only the remaining 300 super-delegates to choose.

Todd's right, that there's no reason for Clinton to believe that the SD's would then flock to her, even in the best case scenario that she closes with 3, or even 4, victories and a lead in the popular vote. What's more likely, at that point, after having gained as many pledged delegates as possible, is for Clinton to stand down and wait. At some point soon thereafter, enough SD's are likely going to give Obama a majority of whatever the final number winds up being.

That's assuming nothing between now and then drastically changes the landscape. Or even after, all the way to the convention. And that's why Clinton will wait, with as many pledged delegates as possible, because everyone knows that the SD's like Joe Andrews can change their mind, all the way up to the convention.



Display:


Hey Jerome (none / 0)

Off topic but can you look at this diary:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/9/01452 /78428

Thanks.


Dem in 08.

Bring Back the Wonk - Just say No to the Primary War.

by Student Guy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:54:28 AM EST

Indiana by less than 1% (2.00 / 2)

Thu May 08, 2008
The actual final vote totals from the Indiana Secretary of State are in at last.

They show that the final contest in Indiana was even narrower than the difference popularly reported.

According to the Indiana Secretary of State, the official totals were:

Hillary Clinton:   637,814        50.4%

Barack Obama:  626,642       49.6%

The difference:  11,152          less than 1 %

This difference, was almost surely caused by Rush Limbaugh and operation Chaos
(who at least according to ABC made up 7% of Clinton's voting base.)

Axelrod's claim that Rush won it for Hillary is accurate.


by dearreader on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:02:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

Replace accurate with "childish."  Know how annoying it is when Clinton supporters try to diminish every win by Obama?  Yeah.

If you want to discount "strategic" votes, you can't just pretend that only Limbaugh's disciples are an issue and every other vote is legitimate.  You'd have to figure out how many McCain supporters voted for Obama because they think he's the weaker candidate.  You'd have to figure out how many people voted for Obama who have no intention to vote for him in November, but simply want to see Hillary lose because they dislike her.  I don't think it's possible to quantify these groups, and I think it's pretty sore-loserish (or sore-winnerish, if you prefer) to go there in the first place.

Also, progressives who help Rush Limbaugh in his quest for self-promotion are idiots.  This includes John Kerry and every other Obama surrogates who has taken pains to make sure the world knows that Rush has the ability to alter a Democratic election result.  Good thinking, there.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:38:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (2.00 / 1)

Facts are facts.


by cherrygarcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:50:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

Yes, and I included a lot of them in my last post.  You might consider reading it, and then for extra credit, thinking about how it benefits Obama's chances for November to continue quibbling about stupid issues like this.

Does it help Obama in any conceivable way to try and diminish the legitimacy of Hillary's win in Indiana?  Of course not.  But clearly they just can't help themselves.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:01:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yours was conjecture (none / 0)

it is well known that Limbaugh was sowing the seeds of chaos intentionally.  Your points are mere conjecture.


by lojasmo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:00:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

Exactly Steve "They just can't help themselves" and that very irrational position constantly thrown in Clinton supporters face is why they suck!! and most of us are sickened by how many "uhs" and demeanor of Obama!! Dkos people in every poll they held all the way up to Edwards leaving the race had him as their choice!! and Edwards won't even endorse their so called annointed one. So just let them continue to think they don't need us!!!


by stratdan1 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:56:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

and here are more facts - Obama "broke the law" longggg before Limbaugh.
Obama implemented "Dem for a day" last year in almost every state - urging Repubs and Indys to vote for him in the primaries and caucuses - ensuring them they could reregister before Nov. and vote GOP.
That is straight from Obama's mouth - and still concealed by the media.
by JoseyJ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:37:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

Wow.  Now folks are just making shit up.  


by deminva on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:58:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

Nope! I heard Obama say it several times last summer with his own mouth!
But after a Nevada volunteer "got in trouble" in January for handing out those fliers - Obama campaign acted "surprised" and said it wasn't approved by the campaign.
ha!

More Obama bamboozling!


by JoseyJ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:12:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

and here are more facts - Obama "broke the law" longggg before Limbaugh.
Obama implemented "Dem for a day" last year in almost every state - urging Repubs and Indys to vote for him in the primaries and caucuses - ensuring them they could reregister before Nov. and vote GOP.
That is straight from Obama's mouth - and still concealed by the media.
by JoseyJ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:37:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

Dems for a day - which wasn't sanctioned by the Obama campaign - involved getting voters who liked Obama to vote for him.

Operation Chaos involved getting people who hate Clinton to vote for her.

Big difference.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:16:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

"Dem for a day" is straight from Obama's mouth! - encouraging Repubs and Indys to mess with Dem primaries and caucuses.  Didn't you hear any Obama rallies a year ago??

In Texas primary - 25% of Obama voters didn't vote for the rest of the Dem ticket!

The were Obamacrats for a day.


by JoseyJ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:54:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

"A year ago"?!  In May 2007, Obama was instructing Republicans and Independents to vote for him in the primaries but not the GE?  And they remembered his instructions eight months later, when the primaries started?


by deminva on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:00:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

All candidates encourage voter registration! I believe there's a federal law voters have to be registered a certain time prior to the general.

But Obama took it to the Rove level - encouraging Repubs and Indys to increase his primary and caucus numbers then do whatever they wanted in the general.


by JoseyJ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:19:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

So now we're back to making shit up.


Poor, gun-owning white guy for Obama
by Mandoliniment on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:43:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

I'm not making it up. But you sound like you've been in the Obama bubble and obviously missed it.


by JoseyJ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:07:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

If you're not making it up, then provide links to prove it.  We all know Obama has reached out to Independents and Republicans.  Apparently only you know that he actually made a cynical, public statement to the effect that he wanted Reps and Indys to vote for him in the primaries and didn't care if they don't support him in the General.  

And only you know about it because it didn't happen.  


by deminva on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:18:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

Obama's "Dem for a day" was diaried here - encouraging Repubs and Indys to become Obamacrats for ONE DAY - ensuring them they could switch their registration back (according to their states' laws) to Repub before Nov.
Obama said it - and it was in the fliers posted here.
by JoseyJ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:55:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

Well, your "federal law" thing is a total fabrication; here in WI you can register at the polls on the day of the election.

The rest of your argument you've asserted several times without documentation, which is a classic hallmark of "making shit up."


Poor, gun-owning white guy for Obama
by Mandoliniment on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:33:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

I said "I believe" about the federal law, but perhaps that sounded too absolute.

Obama's "Dem for a day" was diaried here.
And you can google Obamacrats.
The BO.com link I posted here several months ago has now been scrubbed.


by JoseyJ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:01:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

It is actually possible to quantify those groups using the exit polls.

When asked who would you vote for, Clinton or McCain, 16% of respondents said McCain. Of that 16% 41% indicated they voted for Clinton in the primary. 1,274,993 votes were cast in Indiana, 16% of that is 203,998. 41% of 203,998 is 83,639 which represents about 1 in 8 Clinton voters which said they would vote McCain over Clinton in a general election.

When asked who would you vote for, Obama or McCain, 18% of respondents said McCain. Of that 18%, 12% indicated they voted for Obama in the Primary. 18% of 1,274,993 is 229,498. 12% of 229,498 is 27,539 which represents about 1 in 22 Obama voters who said they would vote for McCain over Obama in a general election.

So Chaos voters represented about 110,000 votes among 1.2 million votes cast and Chaos voters went for Clinton by about 3 to 1.


Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.
by Obama Independent on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:02:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (2.00 / 1)

The assumption that people who are trying to monkey with an election are going to answer exit pollsters honestly seems obviously invalid.

Again, I'm having a lot of trouble seeing the brilliant political reason that it's necessary to try and delegitimize Hillary's win in Indiana, but clearly David Axelrod and John Kerry know something I don't.  At some point they're going to have to stop throwing red meat to the Hillary-hating base if they want to win in November, though.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:10:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

You're right, the numbers are quite possibly higher. I can't imagine someone who answered an exit poll saying they voted for a primary candidate they would not support in the general election were being anything less then honest because it's quite frankly a strange assertion to make. The analysis I did is of course bound by any margin of error in the exit poll.

I get your larger point about delegitimizing her win, though you also have to realize frustration among Obama supporters when what likely would have been a win for them was taken away. The Obama campaign has had a brutal time the last two months and a double win would have been a huge development. I still believe it's important to understand what happened as an argument to the superdelegates if nothing else.


Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.
by Obama Independent on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:28:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

The general consensus of the pundit-sphere seemd to be that a double win for Clinton gave her a good argument with the SDs, a split decision meant things went on unchanged, and a double win for Obama meant that Clinton's situation was hopeless and the race was over.

Tuesday night, the pundit-sphere seemed ready to count an under 2% win in IN as close enough to a loss to push things into the "It's over" category, but as the week progressed, some people (including Clinton) have instead focused on the split decision, and treated the race as still up in the air. Pointing out that Clinton won by less than 1% and that her margin of victory is less than the number of voters who voted for her over Obama, but will vote for McCain over her, is an attempt to try to push the coverage back to close enough to a double loss for Clinton that the difference doesn't matter, it's over.

I guess they feel that the risk of pissing of Clinton supporters is worth it. I don't think I agree, but so it goes.


by letterc on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:08:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

I think that diaries like the "why did Obama lose Indiana?!?" one opened the dialog...


Poor, gun-owning white guy for Obama
by Mandoliniment on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:45:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

Was that TexasDarlin? I've stopped reading her, so I'm not sure exactly what she said.


by letterc on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:07:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

Please.  How legitimate is a win by less than one percent when the delegates are split?  It's meaningless whether Rush flipped the election.  The fact remains, with barely "winning" Indiana and getting spanking in NC, Hillary's campaign went down in flames.  It'll be a while before everyone on the web site gets it, obviously, but this thing is over.  Quibbling about things like this is stupid and the direct result of Hillary's divisive campaign.  The sooner she shuts up, the sooner her sheep will see the light.


by crackerdog on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:04:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

I agree that trying to diminish Clinton's victory, however small, is annoying, just as her constant attempts to diminish all of Obama's victories was, and is, annoying.  I also question whether this is the final tally, since under Indiana's law those who cast provisional ballots have 10 days to get proper ID and have their votes count.


by stationakl on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:09:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

Obama made a point of congratulating Clinton on her IN win.  Clinton made a habit throughout February of ignoring Obama's wins.


by deminva on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:02:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana by less than 1% (none / 0)

well, if you really believe in exit polls, these questions are pretty much or less answered.

then again, who cares?


by alex100 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:53:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

New Jersey - Obama (2.00 / 1)

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washingt on/2008/05/a-barack-obama.html

EXCERPT

A Barack Obama surprise in New Jersey poll results

Funny how that recent memo from Hillary Clinton loyalist Harold Ickes recapping all sorts of positive poll numbers for her didn't include a survey from her neck of the woods.

A late April poll of New Jersey voters by Braun Research found -- no real surprise -- that either Clinton or Barack Obama would win the state and its 15 electoral votes in November against John McCain. The surprise was that Obama ran substantially ahead of McCain, more so than Clinton. He beat the presumptive Republican presidential nominee by 24 percentage points; her margin was 14 points.

And here was the real shocker: In a state where Clinton, senator from neighboring New York, won the Feb. 5 primary by 10 points, 45% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents now said they wanted to see Obama as the party's nominee, compared with 38% who picked Clinton.

Less than three months after Clinton's primary win, "some New Jersey voters feel buyer's remorse," said poll director Patrick Murray.


by dearreader on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:25:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

more Obama bamboozling! (none / 0)

>>>>...Mahoney said Obama "still has concerns that the primary didn't reflect how well he could have done if he had campaigned in the state."

Obama is the ONLY candidate to violate DNC rules!
He held a small rally in FL that constituted campaigning - and he aired TV ads.
Obama's penalty?  ha!

Obama also deceives voters on the war by telling them he was "against the war from the start."

It's Obama's "judgment" and votes favoring corporations after he became a U.S. senator that are problematic.


by JoseyJ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:07:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: more Obama bamboozling! (none / 0)

Evidence? The only "rally" I can find evidence of is from April 2007. The state was not sanctioned until August.


Poor, gun-owning white guy for Obama
by Mandoliniment on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:52:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

Ultimately it's about delegates, but what I think it's really about is shoehorning Michigan into the popular vote equation, and then springing from that to an argument to superdelegates.


by Mostly on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:55:30 AM EST

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

Logically, how is the popular vote total in Michigan either more or less legitimate depending on whether the delegates are seated?  I'm just curious because it doesn't necessarily follow unless one were to allocate a proportionate amount of the uncommitted votes to Obama.


by rfahey22 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:03:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

You know, as soon as I posted that I wondered that myself.

Couldn't tell you.


by Mostly on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:37:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

If we count the delegates, we are treating it as being a legitimate election, so of course the votes count (although rearranging the delegate counts so they only vaguely resemble the vote totals does suggest that the delegate count is not legitimate).

However, since we are treating the uncommitted voters as Obama voters for delegate purposes, it would seem even stranger to treat (as the mydd sidebar does) as being votes for no one.


by letterc on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:12:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

Oops, the sidebar does it with the delegates, and will undoubtedly be changed once their is a delegate distribution for MI agreed upon. Various people use the pop vote count where Obama gets 0 in MI, but not the side bar.


by letterc on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:13:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

Neither the delegates nor the popular vote is legitimate in Michigan.  How can they be, when a leading contender took his name off the ballot after being told the primary wouldn't count?  How can they be, when Clinton herself said she was keeping her name on the ballot only because it wouldn't matter--the results wouldn't count?  

And I'd really like to know:  Is there any Clinton supporter at MyDD who has ever acknowledged Clinton's lies and hypocrisy about the Michigan primary?  The only formal response I ever got when I raised it was, basically, hahahahahaha, all politicians lie, LOL.

More generally, this contest is about delegates.  The Clinton camp made this point repeatedly, back before they realized they couldn't win on delegates.  And it's a race to 2025, as, again, the Clinton camp said repeatedly, back before they realized they couldn't win with that number.  If it were about total popular votes, no states would choose caucuses.  To change the determining metric now would be to diminish the votes of staunch Democrats in many core states.  Why would we do that as a sop to the Democratic leadership of Michigan, who were bent on ignoring the rules of the process?


by deminva on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:14:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

Obama always said FL and MI would be seated.  He's not just saying that now.


by map on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:57:01 AM EST

very Rovian comment from Obama (none / 0)

>>>...Mahoney said Obama "still has concerns that the primary didn't reflect how well he could have done if he had campaigned in the state."

designed to confuse voters.  But playing the Victim Card has worked well for Obama.

No candidate campaigned in FL and MI or broke DNC rules except Obama in FL by holding a small rally and airing TV ads.
Can you imagine the outcry if Hillary had run TV ads?!??
Fl's primary date was 3 days after Obama had won SC and lots of pro-media attention.
Even with that - plus breaking DNC rules with TV ads- Obama still lost.


by JoseyJ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:05:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: very Rovian comment from Obama (none / 0)

Obama ran national ads. Bending, but not breaking the rules.
The major issue here, which you want to overlook, so conviently, is how Obama historically eats up Hillary's leads when he starts campaigning. OH, PA and IA are classic examples.
For you to insinuate that Obama would have lost by the same margin if they would have both campagined means that you are delusional and want to ignore  one of the few CONCRETE trends in this primary.
A PROUD Hopium user!
by xodus1914 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:34:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: very Rovian comment from Obama (none / 0)

Airing national TV ads isn't breaking rules.  Not even bending.  

Don't be silly.


by deminva on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:17:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: very Rovian comment from Obama (none / 0)

The DNC rules state NO CAMPAIGNING, NO CAMPAIGN ADS.


by JoseyJ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:33:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: very Rovian comment from Obama (none / 0)

Are you thick?  Just because you repeatedly post and argument over and over again doesn't make it true.  They were NATIONAL TV ADS.  If you buy a TV ad on a national cable channel, it is IMPOSSIBLE to choose which states it runs in.  What part of that do you not understand?

As far as fundraising, Hillary held two separate fundraisers in Florida, with full publicity.  So it's a moot point.  I just don't see what your point is in bringing any of this up.  She won Florida, but lost the primary election.  Get over it.


"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:17:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: very Rovian comment from Obama (none / 0)

>>>>They were NATIONAL TV ADS.  If you buy a TV ad on a national cable channel, it is IMPOSSIBLE to choose which states it runs in

Turn it around. What if Hillary had run those TV ads?
THEN Obamamites would be declaring she could have found a way for a national TV buy to omit Florida. And they would be correct.

>>> Hillary held two separate fundraisers in Florida, with full publicity

Not true! Hillary and other candidates held PRIVATE fundraisers which they were allowed to do. Just because the media reported it - didn't mean it was public.


by JoseyJ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:38:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: very Rovian comment from Obama (none / 0)

"Turn it around. What if Hillary had run those TV ads?
THEN Obamamites would be declaring she could have found a way for a national TV buy to omit Florida. And they would be correct."

Durrghhhhh.  Repeat after me Josie: You can't buy a state selective national TV ad.  I know reality is something that seems to be elusive to you, but try and grasp this concept for me.  It doesn't matter if Clinton would have done it.  It doesn't matter if Jesus himself would have done it.  It just doesn't work that way.

Now, back to the situation at hand.  As much as you love to beat dead horses, we must digress.  Explain to me how Hillary's rejection of Michigan's OWN proposal to seat their delegates is a good thing.  Explain to me how rejecting the state's OWN solution isn't "disenfranchising" them.  I'm all ears, and not expecting a response.  An off-topic rant full of silly accusations maybe.  But nothing substantive regarding your candidate's new ploy to drag this process out even longer.


"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:28:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (2.00 / 3)

It seems like almost everybody in Michigan is in favor of the compromise except the Clinton campaign.  So I don't think she has the upper hand on anything, and certainly not that Obama has agreed to a pretty reasonable compromise.  Now its the Clinton campaign that appears to be disenfranchising voters.


by KevinT on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:57:11 AM EST

Re: Delegates matter (2.00 / 3)

I agree completely. I do not see how her argument can reasonably be characterized as strong. It seems that seating the delegates as voted in the election that the DNC said would not count is the least fair solution possible. Her argument certainly doesn't have any sense of fairness to commend it.


by Bipolar Disorder Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:00:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

Agreed.  Jerome's totally off base.  Clinton doesn't have the upper hand in anything right now.  


by deminva on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:19:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (2.00 / 1)

Agreed. She is saying MY way or the Highway on that deal.

The Supers don't like that. Obama is willing to compromise and HE is in the lead.

She is the one that has the weak hand here, on MI, Jerome.


"No reason to get excited," the thief, he kindly spoke, "There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke....
by WashStateBlue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:01:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (2.00 / 2)

Agreed.  Hillary should accept the compromise.  Obama is being gracious.  I understand that Obama didn't technically receive any votes in Michigan but even as an ardent Hillary supporter, with all of the problems with the election there, it's not fair for her to reap a perverse benefit that is incommensurate with the votes she received there.

They need to count the votes in FL/MI.  And they need to recognize that people who wanted to vote for Obama couldn't.  If Hillary is rejecting the proposal because she wants a measly four more delegates, I would even say, fine, give her 73 and give him a proportion that matches "Uncommitted."  

But for her to argue for something ridiculous like "I get all of the delegates" undercuts her argument about democracy and counting the votes.  What kind of proposal is she expecting?

Her best bet is to agree to this MI proposal, maybe with whatever small caveat that gives her four more delegates if it in fact matches the primary more.  I hate to say it, but with the lead he has now, I don't think Obama will miss them (the four delegates).

She's likely to net 30 delegates in the remaining contests because WV and KY are so insanely favorable to her.

She should chill out, stay positive, and let life do whatever work it needs to for her.  She can't actively harm BO's image, but she can passively sit there as GE match-up polls come out in swing states etc.  Maybe a clear tide will turn in her favor somehow.  

If she's gracious in this FL/MI seating (which really is generous to her, considering the party can be total jerks and cut them off completely, political fallout notwithstanding), she looks better to SD's.

A gracious demeanor, accumulate the wins in WV, KY, etc. maybe a final overture to Edwards after some time passes...

She has a 5-10% chance to win and that includes the possibility of WEIRD things happening, like Godzilla and Mothra showing up and kidnapping Obama.


by BPK80 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:56:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

Oh great, now I have to worry about Mothra too.  I'm not getting enough sleep as it is.


by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:12:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (2.00 / 1)

You also have to worry about the neo-Greek

ANNE COULTER MEDUSA MONSTER

It has 12 snakes on its head, it writes books, and it eats 9/11 Widows for breakfast.


by BPK80 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:16:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

I'm not sure what Edwards would have to gain by backing Clinton at this juncture. I can't imagine he wants to irritate the likely nominee.


Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.
by Obama Independent on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:06:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

Let's not forget Obama HIMSELF took his name off the ballot VOLUNTARILY. Nobody held a gun to his head to do so. If Hillary is being held accountable for her campaign's mistakes, Obama has to suck it up and take his licks.

If his supporters were idiot enough to vote uncommitted instead of writing his name on the ballot, that's their problem.

Sorry, but everyone needs to take responsibility for their actions and live with the consequences. Obama should be awarded ZERO delegates from MI while the uncommitted make their choice in Denver.


by SoCalHillMan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:49:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

Yous ay "voluntarily" like it was somehow devious.

Obama, silly man, was trying to follow the rules that all the candidates agreed to at the beginning.  Clinton was gaming the system all along, and now she just sounds terribly desperate for what we all know won't happen.

Were I a Michigan Obama supporter, I would be outraged if Michigan delegates or votes were all given to HRC.  There are a lot of African Americans in Michigan, to name only one constituency that will matter in November; and a lot of students; and a lot of tech workers -- all core Obama support groups.

So telling them to stuff it is more likely to cost the dems Michigan in November than just leaving things as they are and not counting Michigan at all, as Hillary agreed to do earlier in the campaign.

Had Obama campaigned in Michigan and been on the ballot, it is my contention he would have won, perhaps easily depending on when in the process it had happened.

Florida is a harder nut to figure, but then again, I'm sick of Florida's inability to do anything right with respect to electoral processes.  It is the single most corrupt state, politically, in the union.  We need to find a way to win without it (or do you trust the state that gave us President Bush?) and Obama can do just that by adding Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia, and possibly more of the mountain west to the slate.  

Since 2000, my view on Florida has been that I'd be happy to see it become an independent republic, or fall into the sea.  Why do we keep dreaming we can win a fair fight when there hasn't been a fair fight in Florida yet?

Ohio is a harder nut to spit out.  But I think Obama can win it.  He can also win Missouri; he has a shot at Kansas as a native son in a year the GOP is demoralized and underfunded to fight small state battles.

Pennsylvania is virtually assured for Obama this time; we registered 2+MILLION new democratic voters there this year, guys.  That's the margin we needed for any of our candidates.  


by realcountrymusic on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:14:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

" everyone needs to take responsibility for their actions and live with the consequences"

Exactly.  The MI democratic party broke the rules, the National Dems warned them, they did it anyway.  

Therefore they need to live with the consequences of having their delegates parsed up in a board room.


by gil44 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:44:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

I believe Sen. Clinton should accept this compromise for a variety of reasons: it's likely the best "offer" she will get and I think she should continue to run hard but with a party unity focus and accepting this compromise would have that effect.

What makes her argument strong, however, is that she is arguing delegate allocation should bear some relationship to actual elections, however flawed, in which actual people actually voted rather than the product of a backroom deal crafted by a few state party insiders.  I think that argument has some merit.

I am not a big believer in the idea that Sen. Obama should get zero delegates out of Michigan but I have a hard time taking some away from Clinton because of a backroom deal.


"We live entangled of webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC
by Trond Jacobsen on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:01:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (2.00 / 1)

"Or even after, all the way to the convention. And that's why Clinton will wait, with as many pledged delegates as possible, because everyone knows that the SD's like Joe Andrews can change their mind, all the way up to the convention."

Great.  So McCain and Clinton will double team on Obama all summer instead of us reuniting for the very slight chance that supers will flip the election in July.  That sounds like a winning strategy for the general.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:57:48 AM EST

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

I don't think she'll double team with McCain, she'll campaign for Obama. Her path to the nomination is largely out of her hands. It's predicated on the idea that Obama can't win and something big coming out that torpedoes his candidacy. Should this happen she will be there at the convention with her delegates and be able to ride in and save the day. It's in her best interests right now to campaign for him because if she spends the next two months attacking him she's going to piss off the superdelegates and a large portion of the democratic base who will take her attacks as a self serving power grab.


Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.
by Obama Independent on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:08:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

I hope you're right...  If she really believes that Obama is totally and completely unelectable, then she has nothing to lose, really.... She gets to try again in 2012, and if she worked hard for Obama, she will not have burned any valuable bridges for her future.


by LordMike on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:12:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

Exactly. She has nothing to loose and everything to gain. If the event she needs appears over the summer she can still be nominated at the convention. If it doesn't but Obama still looses in November she can try again in 2012. But if she is seen as having a hand in his downfall then she has no chance either and a divisive floor fight at the convention just guarantees a Republican victory in November no matter which of them prevails.


Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.
by Obama Independent on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:23:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

She has no reason to publicly harm him when there are no more elections left.


by BPK80 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:59:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

Let's just say I'm not exactly holding my breath.  The race is basically over, and it hasn't stopped her from making more racially divisive comments so far.


"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:19:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

She has been in the same position vis a vis an Obama meltdown since super Tuesday.  Since the Ohio/Texas primaries its been clear that she couldn't come up with an outright win without his meltdown.  She could have suspended her campaign then, and gone on the attack against McCain. But she didn't.  Why do you think she will do so now?


by stationakl on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:13:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

Actually if that were the strategy, it made sense to press on to at least PA to make sure that she had enough delegates that she could win if every SD suddenly had to flip to her.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:48:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (2.00 / 1)

I don't think looking over Obama's shoulders hoping to hop on any turbulence to start claiming for a redo is a very healthy strategy for the middle term (our nominee needs us around him/her even in tough times - and there are always tough times in a campaign).
But at least there is the acknowledgement that at this stage, Obama IS going to be the nominee. That's a start.
by Benjaminomeara on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:57:58 AM EST

Re: Delegates matter (2.00 / 1)

Why don't you go talk to the women, senior, Latino and working class Hillary supporters and get their take? Last time anyone checked, Obama needs the support of the SD in order to get the nomination.

If he really did have this sown up, why haven't the SD embraced him and shut this thing down?

Here's the best possible answer:

There are more female, over-65, Latino and working class Democratic voters than there are A/A and young voters. Obama has shown he can't win her voting blocs, so the SD are going to have to decide if they want to go down in flames with Obama, or roll the dice that Hillary can take them over the finish line.

I can tell you now Hillary's voting blocs have no problem with McCain versus what they see as an inexperienced empty suit in Obama. The Obama supporters have no idea how badly they've burned their bridges to Hillary's supporters.


by SoCalHillMan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:57:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I actually watched McCain... (none / 0)

on Billo last night and he really is running to the left now-highlighting his opposition to drilling in ANWR, talking about global warming, not backing down from his unpopular (among conservatives) position on immigration and repeatedly agreeing with Billo's comments about how conservatives don't like his positions.

Yes, he's old and the war, etc but right now I can see him burnishing his image as a Maverick beholding to no one and with enough experience to handle whatever comes up. He treats Obama like parents treat their teens when said teens want to CHANGE the world when they have little clue how the world works-sitting down with dictators with no preconditions...how cute...kids today... that sort of thing.

How comfortable will middle America be with an untested politician at the helm these days...I know, Bush, but he surrounded himself with older established leaders..will the voters see Kennedy, Kerry, McGovern etc as comfortng elders or scary liberals?


berkshiretrueblue Commited to helping elect a Democrat as President "Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo" Ambroise Bierce
by berkshiretrueblue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:54:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome, delusionally optimistic 'til (2.00 / 3)

the bitter end, eh?


by bigdcdem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:59:20 AM EST

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

Who honestly doubted that they would be seated in some form?


by rfahey22 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:00:49 AM EST

Re: Delegates matter (2.00 / 1)

Bowers has a look at what the delegate spread could be with the above MI proposal and FL being seated, and Obama ends with about a 100 seat pledged-delegate advantage. There are an additional 217 delegates that will also be chosen by early June, leaving only the remaining 300 super-delegates to choose.

Actually he says that's Clintons best-case scenario, which is worth mentioning.

Also, there's nothing stopping Clinton from suspending her campaign in case something drastic happens to Obama.  To continue to campaign, and campaign negatively as she has (the whole "white people won't vote for Obama" meme), is incredibly frustrating.


by ChrisKaty on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:01:44 AM EST

Re: Delegates matter (2.00 / 0)

And to say Clinton has a "strong hand" in those discussions is also very generous to her. She is hardly in a position of power in the party, in the court of public opinion or in narrow political terms right now.
Obama is trying hard to be gracious to her, FL and MI which is why he is letting this issue coming back on the forefront and try to solve it.
As Jerome said, it is Hillary that is blocking the MI resolution because it meets them halfway.
If she really thinks she will get the situation resolved as she hopes and get her way, she has a surprisingly distorted view of the situation. I am surprised they turned down that generous offer.
by Benjaminomeara on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:05:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

So Jerome is advocating Hillary take it to the convention?


by Bobby Obama on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:03:26 AM EST

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

No he's not advocating any such thing. Suspending her campaign and waiting is not the same as taking it to the convention. Her path to the nomination is largely out of her hands. What she needed was a collapse in his support. His strong showing in North Carolina and narrow loss in Indiana show that this has not happened. Absent that she needs some dark secret to come out which hasn't, or she needs him so battered by attacks that he craters, a situation she has failed to create, or she needs the Republicans to eviscerate him but she can't be seen having a hand in it or it will piss off the superdelegates and a large portion of the base.


Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.
by Obama Independent on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:13:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

The key point Obama supporters (conveniently) overlook is that Obama was supposed to WIN IN.  He even admitted it was the tie-breaker.

Boy, how fast things change when the voters don't stick to the script.

Repeat after me: he needs the SD in order to win the nomination, and just as important, if not moreso, he needs the votes of Hillary supporters in order to win in November. Since A/A and the youth vote alone will NOT win it for him, that leaves the Supers with the unpleasant job of which faction do they wish to piss off more.

While this sounds racist, it's not. It is, however, a cold unpleasant truth.


by SoCalHillMan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:03:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He does need the SDs - and he is getting them. (none / 0)

Stop being in denial. Take a look yourself: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/

It is down to 6.5. By Monday he will be ahead even in super-delegates.


by hania on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:26:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

Without quoting a 3-month old internal scenario developed without polling data and leaked from the Obama campaign, please support your assertion that Obama was supposed to win IN.

No one expected Obama to win IN.

He didn't "admit" anything. He said it "may be like a tiebreaker."

Besides, you think he's going to say "well, I lost Indiana by 1%, and I did say it might be like a tie breaker, so I guess I'll drop out despite leading in every single conceivable metric..."?


Poor, gun-owning white guy for Obama
by Mandoliniment on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:01:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Serious Question (2.00 / 0)

Now, I heard chatter and opinion that some super delegates will hold off on endorsing Obama out of respect to Senator Clinton, you know, to give her time and room for an exit. Also, some are holding off to minimize the embarrassment of Obama getting droves of supers yet managing to get blown out in WV and KY (which is a forgone conclusion).

On the flip side of this equation, many (including the NY Times editorial) are asking the super delegates from states that voted to get off the fence and endorse.

What's the conventional wisdom here? To endorse, not to endorse, or why the hell do people think it's over?


_____________
1,500,000 Strong - Join us!
by lizardbox on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:03:28 AM EST

Re: Serious Question (none / 0)

I think the superdelegates are trying not to antagonize Senator Clinton's base more then necessary. As long as she gives up the negative campaign she has run over the last two months there is little reason not to let the rest of the contests play themselves out.


Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.
by Obama Independent on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:24:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious Question (none / 0)

My guess is that the Obama camp is deliberately orchestrating the SD coming out in a trickle rather than a flood. They know how important it is not to alienate HC's large constituency. They've essentially won at this point so they can afford to be patient.


by drmark on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:04:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Who's disenfranchising who now? (2.00 / 3)

From the economist blog, Democracy in America:

Yesterday Michigan Democrats came up with a fair and quick resolution, agreeing to a plan that would give Mrs Clinton 69 delegates, just four fewer than she would have gained by winning the state's unfair primary. But the deal would also take into account the fact that Barack Obama's name wasn't on the ballot, so he would receive 59 delegates. Reasonable, no? Even the co-chairman of Mrs Clinton's Michigan campaign said it was a fair deal.

But the Clinton campaign said today that they oppose the plan and won't support any proposal that doesn't give Mrs Clinton the full slate of delegates she earned from the January primary. Again, that's the primary where Barack Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. And yet they're going to insist on those four extra delegates. It's sad.
Florida and Michicagn are worth more to Hillary as a weapon than for their delegates, which won't even put her near Obama's total.  She doesn't want the delegates seated unless they are done so in the most unfair way possible, which she knows won't happen.  So she continues to energize her supporters by crying 'disenfranshisement'.  Yet now she's the one blocking the new deal, which is fair.  She has becomes the one denying Michiganders the right to voice their opinion, which shows more than anything how little she truly cares about their votes except as political capital.

Tell me, how exactly is this different from when Obama was the one opposed to the deal on the table?


by semiquaver on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:04:16 AM EST

Re: Who's disenfranchising who now? (2.00 / 1)

Its pretty clear that her only rationale for staying in the race is that Florida and Michigan haven't been resolved yet.  If that were to happen, even if she got exactly what she wanted, it would still be nearly impossible for her to win.  So she is going to reject anything short of her getting all her delegates in Florida and Michigan, and Obama getting none in Michigan.


by KevinT on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:12:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's disenfranchising who now? (2.00 / 1)

Florida and Michicagn are worth more to Hillary as a weapon than for their delegates

Wow.  That really does describe the reality of this political stunt with crystal clarity.  Not snark.  Seriously.


You haven't seen impatient until you've seen a monkey waiting for a donut.
by bjones on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:18:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yep (none / 0)

Once the Florida and Michigan issue is resolved, Hillary's last plausible rationale for remaining in the race disappears.


by Angry White Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:39:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (2.00 / 0)

Personally, I think MI and Florida are the Clinton Campaigns Version of Rove's Roe v Wade spin?

They need some issue to keep the troops in a lather, LOOK how worked up the most ballastic Clinton supporters get about FL and MI?

If it's off the table, she starts to lose all her arguments?

Then, it's not about those POOR disenfranchised voters...

It's about the fact she is still behind.


"No reason to get excited," the thief, he kindly spoke, "There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke....
by WashStateBlue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:04:48 AM EST

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

When your only path to the nomination is to overturn the pledged delegate lead of your opponent, it is by definition, not about the voters.  It is about playing on your supporters loyalty to collect money, pay off debts and try to drag Obama down.

After Tuesday, I was in favor of the "let everyone vote and wait til June" argument, assuming HRC stayed positive.  Guess I was a sucker.  I'm getting real sick of "the black guy can't win" argument from Clinton.  Time for the supers to step up and end it.  Given Clinton's behavior, I really don't think she deserves "space" and a bit of time to close down with dignity.  

Maybe I'll feel differently tomorrow.  Not feeling very charitable right now.


by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:17:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

No, I agree.  The more space she's given, the more she uses it to drive a deeper wedge in the party.  At this moment, unity is not in her interest - her interest is that her supporters remain exactly that, HER SUPPORTERS.

She's not going to willingly give that up.  She's shown absolutely no indication that she ever has that intention.


by Mostly on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:47:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

Jerome forgot to mention that in Michigan we spiked the uncommited so Hillary Clinton will get 80% of Michigan delegates. Talk about a smart woman.


by Hillarywillwin on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:05:08 AM EST

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

Funny.  Load of crap, but funny all the same.


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:55:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (2.00 / 1)

I know, an excellent strategy. Heck, at least she finally managed to win one that big against Obama. Too bad it had to be in a state that didn't count and Obama wasn't fighting against her in. All in all, though, I'd say it's a good show of Hillary's strategy thus far:


Campaigning with KnowVox for the nominee in the fall.
by ragekage on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:01:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

Maybe she'll pick up McCain's talking point about electing truly conservative SCOTUS's and use against Obama....and the Windfall Profits Tax will pay their salary...


"McCain thinks you're a f***ing idiot. That's why he thinks you'll vote for him."
by hootie4170 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:24:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (2.00 / 0)

People can play with the numbers like modeling clay if it amuses them to, but Obama is the nominee. Those who don't know it yet are so few as to not matter.

But by all means they should send Hillary some more money. Maybe if she can pay herself back she'll end this silly distraction her candidacy has become.


Hillary Who?
by Kobi on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:05:29 AM EST

Re: Delegates matter (2.00 / 1)

Why start now?


by The Animal on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:06:58 AM EST

Re: Delegates matter (2.00 / 0)

I don't know, I would just think Jerome has to be tired of this crap. I suppose not though, and that's pretty disappointing I have to say


by TheNewMexican on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:08:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (2.00 / 1)

The only explanation I can think of is that he just enjoys getting Obama supporters all worked up.  Sort of like his gas tax holiday analysis where he claims that was a winner for Clinton.  We all start jumping up and down and calling him names.


by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:29:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

I think that's just gravy - he actually believed the gas tax repeal was pure political genius.  Whether it was good policy or good framing for long term progressive change wasn't considered particularly relevant.


by The Animal on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:38:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (2.00 / 1)

There are many people who make their living off of being experts in triangulation and cynical manipulation of an uninformed voting base. Those experts don't like Obama much because he doesn't need them--Obama can talk to America like they're adults because he's a gifted communicator and has credibility.

This, by the way, is exactly why many of us like Obama so much. He has the option to stand on principle and do the right thing, even if that isn't the politically expedient thing. Put another way, I'm never worried that Obama's going to start bombing brown people just so he doesn't appear soft on terr'ism. And I'm never worried that he's going to send a big check to the oil companies (in the form of the gas tax holiday) just because it's politically easy to frame that as 'reducing prices at the pump'.


by Brannon on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:00:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegates matter (none / 0)

She waits?  Or does she continue to attack behind the scenes, hoping for her chance?  


by LordMike on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:09:22 AM EST

attack behind the scenes, hoping for her chance? (none / 0)

If her words about, "hard working people, white people," are any indication, she's on the verge of taking her campaign to a new low.


Hillary Who?
by Kobi on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:18:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: attack behind the scenes, hoping for her chanc (none / 0)

No kidding.  My wife and I are hard-working white people and we voted for Obama.  What the fuck is her point?


by 08AMA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:24:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: attack behind the scenes, hoping for her chanc (