Obama takes superdelegate lead! From ABC News

According to ABC News:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/ story?id=4818637&page=1

Sen. Barack Obama moved into the lead today in the last category that Sen. Hillary Clinton had claimed to have an edge -- support among the Democratic Party's superdelegates.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has taken the superdelegate lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., in their battle for the 2008 Democratic nomination.
(AP Photo)The Illinois Democrat grabbed the superdelegate lead thanks to a switch by New Jersey Rep. Donald Payne and an endorsement from previously uncommitted Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon.

Those two votes gave Obama a 267-266 lead over Clinton. That is a huge shift since the days when Clinton boasted about a 60-plus vote lead among the party's pros back on Super Tuesday.

============

That was her last talking point...her last place where she was in the lead.  Drip....drip....drip....

FS

EDIT: Just to be clear, this is the first outlet's count where he passes her...since superdelegates are so difficult to count, other places still show her with the lead. The bad news for her is that this means the story won't be over in one day, as it will be a new story from every network over a week or two as their specific way of counting shows Obama taking the lead.

Tags: ABC News, Recommended, superdelegate (all tags)

Comments

107 Comments

Re: Obama takes superdelegate lead! From ABC News

Thanks for posting this.  Great news!  GOBAMA

by proseandpromise 2008-05-09 07:55AM | 0 recs
rec this up folks

by kindthoughts 2008-05-09 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: rec this up folks

Can't.  They've taken my ability to rec diaries and rate comments.  I have no idea why.

by proseandpromise 2008-05-09 08:17AM | 0 recs
try changing your password

by kindthoughts 2008-05-09 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: try changing your password

No luck.  I've apparently offended the gods.

by proseandpromise 2008-05-09 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: try changing your password

write to john singer, he gave me my privledges back.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-09 08:27AM | 0 recs
Singer's forte....censorship.

by SovSov 2008-05-09 10:59AM | 0 recs
Not surprising, but good nonetheless

I was so depressed at the start of the campaign when Clinton started with a 100+ lead in superdelegates just for being who she was.

In those days I was okay with her being the nominee, but it didn't seem fair.

Well, I'd rather get rid of supers altogether, but you have to win the game before you can change the rules.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-09 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Not surprising, but good nonetheless

I am still not sure if HRC and those SD's that pledged a YEAR a YEAR before Iowa really hurt her campaign.

I doubt we will ever see another candidate try and pull that stunt again.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-09 08:11AM | 0 recs
It smacked of legacy candidate to me.

I really wanted Clinton to stand on her own here, but it just looked like she was playing up Mark Penn's inevitability thing.

Her first warning should've been when Penn thought that California was winner-take-all.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-09 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Not surprising, but good nonetheless

"I was so depressed at the start of the campaign when Clinton started with a 100+ lead in superdelegates just for being who she was."

Yeah, that always pissed me off.  At that point, not a single vote had been cast, so her votes-per-delegate number was zero.

And it was because of her lead in superdelegates that the Clinton campaign claimed for months that they were ahead -- when in reality, Obama has lead in elected delegates from the first day of voting and has never been behind.

Go Obama!

by chinapaulo 2008-05-09 08:58AM | 0 recs
All I got to say is.......

Go Get EM!

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-09 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama takes superdelegate lead! From ABC News

Wow! My first rec list post!

I better clean up my spelling LOL!

FS

by FlashStash 2008-05-09 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama takes superdelegate lead! From ABC News

Congrats Flash

You just joined an elite club of Diarist who broke the REC list.

wait a sec, there are TWO, thats right TWO non hillis44 diaries on the rec list.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-09 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama takes superdelegate lead! From ABC News


(double take)

Whoa!

by cherrygarcia 2008-05-09 08:30AM | 0 recs
What will his SD lead be one week from now?

I'm guessing he'll be up by 8-10.

by PhilFR 2008-05-09 08:22AM | 0 recs
Within 50 of 2025 by May 20

He'll have just about enough to put him over the top with the May 20 results.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-09 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Within 50 of 2025 by May 20

I don't know about that -- that's a lot.  By my estimates, I'm thinking he'll need to pull around 100 more supers between now and then -- around 6 per day.

It may be all over by the shouting, but I think actually hitting 2025 on May 20 may not be attainable.

by Rorgg 2008-05-09 08:34AM | 0 recs
We're seeing a lot of them jump.

I've noted about 5 per day.  I don't think it's that impossible.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-09 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: We're seeing a lot of them jump.

Two wednesday, three or four yesterday depending on your count, and four today.

I don't think it's impossible, but he's already behind the pace, and with so many supers who just plain do not want to commit until someone else decides it for them, I can't quite see it happening.

Maybe soon after, however.

by Rorgg 2008-05-09 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: We're seeing a lot of them jump.

9 today:

Vernon Watkins
Ed Espinoza
John Gage
Donald Payne
Peter Defazio
Wilbur Jeffcoat
Laura Weahkee
Mazie Hirono
Joe Johnson

by Djo 2008-05-09 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama takes superdelegate lead! From ABC News

Woo Hoo!  Full steam ahead to the White House!

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-09 08:22AM | 0 recs
Rasmussen Calls the Democratic Race for Obama

They will not be polling the Clinton vs Obama anymore, only Obama vs McCain.

It feels good to win for once, by God.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-05-09 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen Calls the Democratic Race for Obama

It sure does feel good.  If the Clinton folks will go ahead and jump on board they'll get to feel a win too come November.  This win feels damn good.  That one will be exultant!  If we come together and WHIP THE SHIT out of neoconservatism in an epic wave in November we will have won quite possibly a decisive battle in the culture war.  Even if Obama stands for less divisiveness in this country and a change in how it's done.  It will come as a result of Bushco brand neoconservatism being roundly rejected and congress being filled with people friendly to the progressive agenda.  With any luck we can hold on to the reigns of power long enough to correct the damned SCOTUS too. (It is a lot to hope for, but W has been so damned bad that he may have handed up a lasting grip on the reigns.)

by lockewasright 2008-05-09 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen Calls the Democratic Race for Obama

Never. Obama will never get my vote or my work. As I've said elsewhere, should he get the GE nod, I'm in working for Nader to try and pull as many votes away from him as possible, working like hell for down-ticket Dems, and then writing in Clinton in November. The weakest candidate, besides Gravel, is not going to succeed. We're organizing here in my state already to do him in, so go ahead and feel good now. He will not win. He must not win. No, no, no Obama.

by Soitgoes 2008-05-09 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen Calls the Democratic Race for Obama

It's gonna be fun laughing at you.

How long you gonna culture that pearl?

by lockewasright 2008-05-09 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen Calls the Democratic Race for Obama

Oh come on.  Look what I was tr'd and hr'd for responding to.  This is a site dedicated to getting democrats elected.  That is the stated goal.  This person is organizing to do the opposite.

by lockewasright 2008-05-09 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen Calls the Democratic Race for Obama

So tell us, how do you really feel?

by Djo 2008-05-09 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen Calls the Democratic Race for Obama

Isn't this grounds for being banned from this site, which is for supporting Democrats?

by shalca 2008-05-09 10:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen Calls the Democratic Race for Obama

What the hell are you talking about?I support Dems. I just don't support Oprahama.

by Soitgoes 2008-05-09 10:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen Calls the Democratic Race for Obama

You said that you're doing more than simply not supporting the candidate.  You said you would be working against him to take as many votes away from him as possible with a third-party candidate.  That's working against the democratic party.

by shalca 2008-05-09 11:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen Calls the Democratic Race for Obama

I'm working against Oboreme, but I'm working for down-ticket Dems. I'll be working very hard for down-ticket Dems. So, I'm clearly not a Rethug. The fact that I plan to derail Precious, does not make me any less a Dem, even though you want to claim it so. I think both candidates are objectionable. I'll say it again. I'm not working FOR McCrap, I'm working AGAINST Osuckma. I'm working FOR a strong Dem. Congress to keep McCreepy in check during his 4 years. That's my plan and my right to do so. Perhaps you've heard that I'm hardly alone in my sentiments. No, no, no Obama.  

by Soitgoes 2008-05-10 05:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen Calls the Democratic Race for Obama

You're working to get John McCain elected.

by Mostly 2008-05-10 01:45AM | 0 recs
Circular logic

You object to Obama because he is a weak candidate, and plan to prove it even if you have to make it so by campaigning against him... please step back, take a deep breath, and examine the logic of that for a moment.

I was a Dean supporter in 2004, but I still volunteered, contributed, and voted for Kerry.  I thought Kerry was a weak candidate compared to Dean, but I sure hell was still going to do everything I could to get the neocons out of the whitehouse.

This year, the Dems have the wind at their back.  No matter how weak a candidate you think Obama is, he is waaaaaay better than McCain, and we can win as long as the Dems stay united.

by protothad 2008-05-10 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama takes superdelegate lead! From ABC News

it's great that he's taken the lead in the only metric left. i imagine this will continue over the next 2 weeks. the remaining primaries won't change that, and neither will seating MI and FL

by j cantarella 2008-05-09 08:23AM | 0 recs
I trust DemConWatch more than ABC.

So, for me, the real exciting news is that Obama is only 6.5 behind Clinton in their count!  I wouldn't be surprised if he closes that gap by Monday.

Onwards and upwards!

by Elsinora 2008-05-09 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama takes superdelegate lead! From ABC News

Sweet.

The fat lady is in the house! Sing that tune girlfriend!

Please, if they do come in here...

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!

by cherrygarcia 2008-05-09 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama takes superdelegate lead! From ABC News

but, wait! We've got to do West Virginia first! It's the most important state in the nation!

by ragekage 2008-05-09 08:29AM | 0 recs
by mady 2008-05-09 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Rahm Emanuel

Now THAT is a huge sign.

by Mostly 2008-05-09 09:07AM | 0 recs
Obama on the Hill

While on the Hill yesterday, members of Congress (dems and GOP) congratulated him  and addressed him as "Mr. President", many news outlets such as Huffpo and  Yahoo News, etc are reporting.

He brings such style, grace and class to Washington and the political machine have taken note and responded in kind. A grcious unifier...not a divider.

We should all be proud that we had a hand in putting this winner in the White House.

by april34fff 2008-05-09 08:33AM | 0 recs
Fighting back the flow

Take But take a look at the campaign Hillaryis44 is arranging. I've heard exactly the same thing said many times here in the last few days.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/09 /clinton-supporters-send-l_n_100979.html

"I spent my entire life in the two reddest states in the entire U.S. so please excuse me if I fail to discern the nuances of the arguments sent my way this evening in what appears to be an orchestrated campaign to intimidate the remaining unpledged delegates by threatening to leave the party and vote for a third Bush term if I and others like me don't vote for Sen. Clinton," wrote the exasperated superdelegate. "I have been uncommitted throughout this campaign because I wanted to see how the candidates performed in a variety of settings. I am proud of them both. But I am horrified by this effort to threaten votes for McCain if super delegates don't vote for Sen. Clinton. I have received hundreds of emails from both sides - but I can say without exception that I have not received a single email from an Obama supporter that threatened a vote for McCain if I didn't support Sen. Obama. You really ought to be ashamed."

by duende 2008-05-09 08:54AM | 0 recs
They are

a kin to a circus act in my opinion, laugh at them but don't bother to engage.

by Student Guy 2008-05-09 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: They are

Yes, but when the circus animals escape and trample all over the aisles...

Time for the tranquilizer darts methinks

by duende 2008-05-09 09:48AM | 0 recs
Or the general contempt...

I trolled for a while at some Ron Paul sites (very funny thing to do) and the motivation was upsetting them, by not engaging one denies them the fuel, especially if you disregard them; a kin to booing internetstar.

by Student Guy 2008-05-09 10:15AM | 0 recs
More like...

the political equivalent of a furry/vampyre/otherkin convention.

And if you don't know what those are...count yourself fortunate.

by Elsinora 2008-05-09 09:49AM | 0 recs
I know about furries

and vampyres but thankfull I am uninformed about otherkin.  Just get out the popcorn and bombs (to throw in their threads) and a person is well set.

by Student Guy 2008-05-09 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: More like...

As a furry I take offense to that. Most of us are not as strange or delusional as Hillaryis44.

by Okamifujutsu 2008-05-10 12:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting back the flow

lolololol.

by catilinus 2008-05-09 09:53AM | 0 recs
sd's don't count

only west virginia matters now.

by citizendave 2008-05-09 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: sd's don't count

Even that doesn't matter anymore.  All that matters is November.

by Drummond 2008-05-09 09:44AM | 0 recs
Good Luck on that one...

WV only has 28 delegates.  it is over.  the last "big state" was NC and we saw how that one ended.  the media narrative is moving forward, yes they will give "whatever" to Clinton, but May 20th is the date folks are looking at.  KY and OR, it is OVER for CLINTON.

by tracey webb 2008-05-09 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Good Luck on that one...

I've heard there are thousands of delegates for Hillary, hiding in the hills of West Va.

by toyomama 2008-05-09 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama takes superdelegate lead! From ABC News

This is great news, though Politico's counter shows Obama behind by 3.5 SDs.  Still, it will be nice that for the first time, the superdelegate calculations won't subtract from Obama's pledged delegate lead.

It's also important to note that one of Obama's SD gains has come from another switch from Clinton to Obama.  I think that's about 10 that have switched their allegiance.

This is important because not a single superdelegate has come out for Obama and then later thrown his or her support to Clinton.  And massive switches from Obama to Clinton (in addition to the vast majority of undeclared SDs coming out for Clinton) are, at this point, the only hope for the Clintonistas.  This is marching to a close...

by chinapaulo 2008-05-09 09:05AM | 0 recs
He's ahead in Superdelegates, period.

None of the current trackers count "the pelosi club", 10 or so superdelegates who have said that they will vote for the candidate who wins the majority of pledged delegates.  They also don't count people who have winked and nodded - but not declared - like Jimmy Carter and Al Gore.

This is exciting.  We've all been watching the math - we're Obama supporters, after all - and this is the first time that his total delegate lead will exceed his pledged delegate lead.

by Mostly 2008-05-09 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: He's ahead in Superdelegates, period.

This is a great point.  The group of SDs to which you refer have indicated that their support of the pledged delegate majority winner will be automatic.  Since Obama is guaranteed to reach the majority of pledged delegates, the support of these supers is, therefore, also automatic.

According to Demconwatch, the 'Pelosi club' includes:

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (CA) (added 3/30)
Christine Pelosi (CA) (added 3/30)
Gov. Roy Romer (CO) (added 3/30)
Former President Jimmy Carter (GA) (added 5/1)
Betty Richie (TX) (added 3/30)
Denise Johnson (TX) (added 4/6)

...plus a few SDs that have already declared for Obama (Daschle, Lofgren and Wexler).

Add the following members of the 'wink-and-nod' club:

Donna Brazile
James Clyburn
Al Gore

And that's a total of 9 more for Obama.

by chinapaulo 2008-05-09 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: He's ahead in Superdelegates, period.

I dunno if I would call Carter a Pelosi club guy. He seems like he'd vote Obama no matter what. He really doesn't seem to like Clinton. He mocked that "COUNT THE VOTES" chant at her Indiana speech the other day, it was funny.

by Cheebs 2008-05-09 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: He's ahead in Superdelegates, period.

Fair enough -- he's arguably a member of both the 'pelosi club' and the 'wink-and-nod' club.  :)

by chinapaulo 2008-05-09 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: He's ahead in Superdelegates, period.

My sense is that he's a member of the wink-and-nod club but wants to give a little support to the Pelosi club by echoing his support for this metric of legitimacy.  Not that it really matters.

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-09 10:52AM | 0 recs
OMG

Jimmy Carter is comitting voter fraud by being in two clubs!

He should have to show his ID before voting.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-09 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: He's ahead in Superdelegates, period.

Carter never liked the Clintons. He felt like they treated him with disrespect when they were in power, and he was highly critical of Bill during the whole Lewinsky thing (though of course he was against impeachment).

This whole thing has to feel good to him.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-09 11:07AM | 0 recs
if he cannot win WV, he is not eleactable

and Hillary should stay until convention. If she will crash Obama in WV it will change dynamice in Oregon as well. Stop whining that Hillary should drop out!

by engels 2008-05-09 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: if he cannot win WV, he is not eleactable

"and Hillary should stay until convention."

Going to the convention means 100% chance of John McCain winning in November.

"If she will crash Obama in WV it will change dynamice in Oregon as well."

Right.  Take a state that you know Hillary is going to win and say that Obama needs to win it.  He never had a chance in WV, and Hillary will win it even if she drops out before then.  A victory for Hillary in WV won't mean a thing for voters in Oregon.

"Stop whining that Hillary should drop out!"

I don't see anybody doing any such thing on this thread.  For my part, she can stay in as long as she likes -- it won't change the fact that she's lost.

by chinapaulo 2008-05-09 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: if he cannot win WV, he is not elecatable

you contradict yourself:
1st you said: "Going to the convention means 100% chance of John McCain winning in November."
tthan you said: " For my part, she can stay in as long as she likes".
Which is it? Pick one! And yes, stop whining "she lost". She said very clear: she is staying until Dems will have a nominee.

From I will add if this nominee will be Obama, I will not be part of landslide disaster. You want to be stupid, I cannot stop you, but I cannot force myself to be stupid - you on your own.

by engels 2008-05-09 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: if he cannot win WV, he is not elecatable

Well, won't you be the morally superior one?  :)  

And it is certainly kind of you to lecture Obama supporters on how we're "stupid" and then conclude with erudite phrases like "you on your own."  In fact, we're grateful that you would even deign to speak to folks like us who are so hopelessly muddled that we didn't bow before The Inevitable One.  

by bosdcla14 2008-05-09 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: if he cannot win WV, he is not eleactable

Is this a joke?

by Brannon 2008-05-09 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: if he cannot win WV, he is not eleactable

To me, yes.  To her, no.

by Mostly 2008-05-09 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: if he cannot win WV, he is not eleactable

Yes, going to the convention is a joke.

by catilinus 2008-05-09 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: if he cannot win WV, he is not eleactable

Shouldn't you be writing more emails to superdelegates?

by The Great Gatsby 2008-05-09 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: if he cannot win WV, he is not eleactable

Great satire!  This is satire, no?

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-09 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: if he cannot win WV, he is not eleactable

I thought only 'big' states counted, not 'boutique' states like W.V.? It's hard to keep up w/ those moveable goal posts!!

by awobbly 2008-05-09 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama takes superdelegate lead! From ABC News

Congrats Flash,
May this be the first of many!

Did you hear the news that Edwards voted for Obama?

by catilinus 2008-05-09 09:39AM | 0 recs
Obama Tarred Clintons as Racist/Prevented Revote

He needed two things to happen to win:

1. Disenfranchise voters from two of the biggest states in America

2. Convince African Americans that the people who have stood by them all those years were really racists.

Goal accomplished.

I can not and will not support Obama for his race-bating strategy. He personally attacked Hillary, not her record but her personally: "she will say or do anything to get elected". He also famously went after Bill Clinton (a man who's foundation has provided FREE AIDS medicine to MILLIONS of blacks in Africa and who set up his office in Harlem) and said his comments were racist. NOTHING CAN BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!!!

I will not support race-bating, I will not support Obama.

by mmorang 2008-05-09 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Tarred Clintons as Racist/Prevented Revo

well said.

prepare for the uniters to attack you personally.

by switching sides 2008-05-09 10:33AM | 0 recs
Supreme Court

He will be attacked personally, because when you vote for John McCain, you are voting for justices Alito, Scalia and Roberts. You are saying that Hillary Clinton is more important than the Bill of Rights.

by SupremeCourt 2008-05-09 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court

Alito, Scalia and Roberts.

Weren't two of those Justices confirmed by Senates with a Democratic majority?

by bellarose 2008-05-09 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court

If you think that Senators nominate Supreme Court Justices, I think you need a Civics lesson.

by SupremeCourt 2008-05-09 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court

You have a reading comprehension problem.

Or maybe you misrepresented his views on purpose?  You're a liar, I guess?

Either stupid or a liar, take your pick.  If those are Obama's new politics, you can have them.

by switching sides 2008-05-10 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Tarred Clintons as Racist/Prevented Revo

Switching sides, the number of posts you make that attack people personally outnumber the ones that don't.  You are a troll.

by Mostly 2008-05-09 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Tarred Clintons as Racist/Prevented Revo

You just attacked me.

You are a troll.

by switching sides 2008-05-10 06:31AM | 0 recs
congratulations switchingsides!!!

Currently, 11 of the 30 hidden comments on the first page are yours... a stunning achievement. Your mother must be very proud.

by awobbly 2008-05-09 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: congratulations switchingsides!!!

I guess the Obamatons must be out in force then.

by switching sides 2008-05-10 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Tarred Clintons as Racist/Prevented Revo

Nod, smile, shrug.

by The Great Gatsby 2008-05-09 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Tarred Clintons as Racist/Prevented Revo

Oh! Oh!  It's the oppression of the workers by the powerful monarchists!  Help!  I'm being oppressed!

by deminva 2008-05-09 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Tarred Clintons as Racist/Prevented Revo

"Supreme executive power is derived by a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony!"

Oh man, hadn't thought about that in years.  Thank you.  

by bosdcla14 2008-05-09 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Tarred Clintons as Racist/Prevented Revo

Good thing neither of us brought up watery tarts lobbing scimitars.

by deminva 2008-05-09 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Tarred Clintons as Racist/Prevented Revo

I've got my fingers crossed that the next big campaign story is about McCain calling his wife a "watery tart."  

by freedom78 2008-05-09 07:56PM | 0 recs
THe New Dixiecrat

1. Hillary was all for disenfranchising FL & MI before she realized she needed them. The Republican legislatures in both states were never going to allow a revote and she's known that all along. Now that the MI party has decided on a real plan Hillary has rejected it. She doesn't give a crap about the voters in MI & FL antmore now then when she was calling for their votes not to count it's all political posturing. Did she think like with Bosnia we would not go back and check the record?

2. Hillary's performance in her press conference in WV would have embarrassed George Wallace and Strom Thurmond. If it had been a Republican making those statements there would have been a firestorm about the blatant race baiting.

Hillary isn't a racist any more then she is a whiskey swilling populist, however she is happy to play one if it will get her votes. She is a fraud willing to do and say anything to win and in about a month the super delegates will put her dysfunctional campaign out of it's misery.

by hankg 2008-05-09 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Tarred Clintons as Racist/Prevented Revo

What are you talking about? Many states had Caucasus. All those states don't have voters. Are all of the citizens of those states disenfranchised?

People seem so silly who stand on some made-up principal for the primaries. The primaries are a process by which a political party, not an official arm of government, picks a candidate. A party does this by whatever means it chooses. So talking about disenfranchising voters is just silly. Are the voters in Texas disenfranchised because there was a second caucus which awarded more delegates to Obama? Of course not. There is not such principal.

by drmark 2008-05-09 10:50AM | 0 recs
Supreme Court

When the supreme court intervenes to hand victory to the Republican in every presidential election for the next generation, I'm sure you'll be able to sleep soundly.

by SupremeCourt 2008-05-09 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Tarred Clintons blah blah blah

Just another example of a Clinton supporter who puts what's good for Hillary before what's good for the party.  With examples like you and others, is it any wonder people question whether Hillary would have been good for the party as a whole?

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-09 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Tarred Clintons as Racist/Prevented Revo

You are spamming every thread with this.  You need to stop.

by Mostly 2008-05-09 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Tarred Clintons as Racist/Prevented Revo

Thankfully most people have more sense than you.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-09 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Tarred Clintons as Racist/Prevented Revo

Everything you've written here is true.  Prepare to be troll rated out of existence.

by bellarose 2008-05-09 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Tarred Clintons as Racist/Prevented Revo

Obama said he will seat the Florida delegates.

by hienmango 2008-05-09 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Tarred Clintons as Racist/Prevented Revo

Hillary supporters need to understand that Hillary initially supported the plan to NOT COUNT THE MI AND FLORIDA VOTES.  

She agreed to this!!! In writing!!!  Stop accusing Obama of dis-enfranchising MI and FL.  This old argument is really disingenuous considering Hillary agreed with Obama not to seat these delegates even before the primary.

If you accuse Obama then you must also accuse Hillary.  And Hillary need to stop using this argument because this makes her disingenuous as well.

by hienmango 2008-05-09 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama takes superdelegate lead! From ABC News

"Obama takes superdelegate lead!"

Uh, no he doesn't.  The superdelegates don't vote until the convention.

Go back to social studies class, and study a bit more.

by switching sides 2008-05-09 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama takes superdelegate lead! From ABC News

So . . . Clinton never had the superdelegate lead?  

You're confusing two things:
(1) announced endorsements by superdelegates, which have for months and months been used to count who is leading in this category; and
(2) actual voting by superdelegates, which doesn't occur until the convention.

If you choose to argue that #1 is meaningless, go ahead.  You'll be in a distinct minority, especially given that zero Obama superdelegates have switched allegiance to Clinton.  

by deminva 2008-05-09 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama takes superdelegate lead! From ABC News

I'll type slow so you can understand:  this refers to endorsements, not votes.

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-09 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama takes superdelegate lead! From ABC News

For that matter, neither do the pledged delegates.

By your own logic, the current state of the race is:

Obama: 0
Clinton: 0
Edwards: 0
Richardson: 0
Dodd: 0
Gravel: 0
Kucinich: 0
Biden: 0

It should be a lively convention.  My money's on Edwards.

by Mostly 2008-05-09 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama takes superdelegate lead! From ABC News

It's gonna be a Gravelanche!

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-09 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama takes superdelegate lead! From ABC News

I get troll-rated for this?  You got to be kidding me.

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-09 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama takes superdelegate lead! From ABC News

You got naked pictures of Jerome.  How did you get mojo'd without getting mojo'd

by reggie23 2008-05-09 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama takes superdelegate lead! From ABC News

So you're saying that Hillary never had the SD lead either?  Hmmmm...

by hienmango 2008-05-09 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama takes superdelegate lead! From ABC News

I thought the Obama people were against SDs deciding the election?

Oh, that only holds true if Hillary benefits.  Gotcha!

by bellarose 2008-05-09 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama takes superdelegate lead! From ABC News

I am against it.  

This assures that it is less likely to happen.

If Hillary somehow earned a majority of pledged delegates, I wouldn't want the SDs to give it to Obama over her, because that would kill any legitimacy his nomination would have and would do just about all you could do to divide the party beyond the point of reconciliation.

by freedom78 2008-05-09 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama takes superdelegate lead! From ABC News

Here's the good news; Superdelagate votes don't count until the convention...So that's will be where it's decided.

by soyousay 2008-05-09 06:26PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads