home

What Is Obama's Position On Superdelegates?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:05:14 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

With all the talk about superdelegates, I must admit I am more than somewhat confused on what Barack Obama's position is. First Read reported:

Obama would not commit to a position he had put forward previously that superdelegates should vote the way their states did -- should the Democratic nomination come down to their votes.

"I think those superdelegates and elected officials and party insiders would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination if the people they represent have said that Obama is our guy," Obama said the morning after the February 5th primaries.

(Emphasis supplied.) It is obvious why Obama will not stick to that position - having lost California, New York, New Jersey, Florida* and Michigan* - he would be guaranteeing a huge loss for himself among superdelegates. Having won in states like Alaska, Idaho and the like, he will be giving away the game with that position.

Thus he now says:

Asked . . . if superdelegates should vote the way their states votes, Obama hedged. "We haven't' had a lengthy discussion with all of our superdelegates -- our super delegates they should vote for me," Obama said.

. . . The question for those not yet committed and the superdelegates that are still out there … trying to make up their minds -- my strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the count®y that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters. . . .

Well, there are a lot of contradictions in that position. Why make that cutoff now, as opposed to all superdelegates? Why not respect the wishes of the voters from the states these superdelegates represent? Why most pledged delegates as opposed to most votes across the country?

This is a mess and it is not clear that Barack Obama can in fact articulate a comprehensible position on the issue that will favor his campaign.

The moral of the story? Go fight to convince superdelegates to support you. I am not sure spin is available here.

NOTE: The comments are now closed in this thread.

< Rules Are Rules, Except When They Are Not | Maine Caucuses Today Amid Heavy Snow >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    What Is Obama's Position On Superdelegates? | 138 comments (138 topical)
    give it time (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by white n az on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:20:11 PM EST
    eventually Axelrod will tell him what his position is - after polling it ;-)

    No debating or discussing any issue (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:24:44 PM EST
    at this critical point in real time will be tolerated in the Obama campaign ;)

    Parent
    Hi Pot, I'm Kettle. (none / 0) (#80)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:19:15 PM EST
    You think Mark Penn makes all that money to sit and daydream?

    Obama thinks for himself, thinks on his feet, and tries to be honest. But you prefer Clinton: smart, poished, tested, retested, and nice and focus grouped.

    But hey, why not send the same people back to do the same things as before, specifically to re-seat a Republican Congress and lead us through years and years of triangulated gridlock.

    Oh, that'll be so much fun. We'll feel so inspired and hopeful. It'll be just like 1999 all over again...

    Parent

    I think I read (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:28:55 PM EST
    That Obama has spent more on pollsters than Clinton has, so please give it a rest.

    Obama does not think fast on his feet.  That is part of why he is not as good in debates as she is.

    Obama wants to sit down with everyone and negotiate.  Please tell me why that is different from triangulation.

    Parent

    I read the same numbers (none / 0) (#102)
    by blogtopus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:42:14 PM EST
    Obama does spend more on polling. Of course, hair-splitters will say "we don't know what he spent it on, exactly", which is true, and should be applied equally to Hillary's campaign poll expenditures too.

    Parent
    Why Obama doesn't triangulate? (none / 0) (#105)
    by koshembos on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:45:20 PM EST
    Because the Bible says that Obama doesn't triangulate!

    Parent
    Obama wouldn't be (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Lena on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:28:35 PM EST
    half so annoying if he didn't pretend that his position on superdelegates (whatever it might be on a particular day) was the moral high ground, meaning that anyone who disagrees with his current position is trying to steal the election and disenfranchise voters.

    Obama supporters too (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:29:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Verb: Obama (none / 0) (#108)
    by koshembos on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:47:44 PM EST
    To Obama means to do the best for Obama and state unequivocally that it's the word of god.

    Parent
    Remember what Hillary said about (none / 0) (#29)
    by magster on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:52:22 PM EST
    Michigan and Florida when talking about moral high ground.  They're both politicians working the refs.

    Parent
    HRC said she would work to get them seated. I (none / 0) (#31)
    by Angel on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:54:51 PM EST
    believe that's all she said.  She did not say they should be seated under any circumstances, just that she would work to have them seated.  And Obama said before FL voted that the delegates should be seated.  But after he lost he changed his tune.  H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E.

    Parent
    this is what I have ALWAYS said (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:55:05 PM EST
    Why then all the high dudgeon from Obama supporters?

    Parent
    I'm an HRC Supporter (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:11:29 PM EST
    And, while hardly able to speak for all HRC supporters, I've said the same thing.  I don't deny Clinton is a politician who is going to do everything within the rules to win the nomination, as she should.  But so will Obama and the idea that he is the light (or as Oprah said the truth) is ridiculous.  He's a politician trying to win, which I don't blame him for so long as he doesn't try to convince me he's above all that.  He's not.

    I really want someone to ask him if he thinks Linda Sanchez, whose district went for Clinton something like 3 to 1, should continue to support Barack Obama.  Should she put him over the top even though the democrats in her state and in her district want his opponent?  (And this is where Obama has a problem, in states he lost, because at least folks like Maxine Waters, whose district went Obama even though she supports Clinton, can fall back on the state vote.)

    Parent

    Because they know Obama will lose if the FL (none / 0) (#34)
    by Angel on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:56:34 PM EST
    delegates are seated.  Very simple.

    Parent
    As to (none / 0) (#41)
    by Lena on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    "they are both politicians working the refs..."

    Yes. That is why Obama is so morally reprehensible when he pretends that he's concerned about enfranchising voters and keeping it fair. He's whipping up his supporters to believe that any accomodations regarding superdelegates will either go his way or will result in disenfranchisement (and presumably an exodus of his supporters from the Democratic party).

    Extremely disturbing.

    Parent

    New party (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by magisterludi on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:25:59 PM EST
    Our long awaited third party- the Obamacans.

    Parent
    Sounds like (none / 0) (#52)
    by IndependantThinker on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:14:47 PM EST
    George Bush!

    Parent
    Obama knows (none / 0) (#66)
    by tek on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:46:59 PM EST
    that the big dogs in D. C. are going to ram his candidacy through so he can act as holier than thou as he wants. It's all a fix.

    Parent
    Yeah, b/c the idea that he might really want (none / 0) (#84)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:22:05 PM EST
    to do the right thing, well, that's just implausible.

    The lady who refuses to unseal documents, release her tax return, embrace transparency, and pays her pollster $4M +, she's so real.

    Parent

    If Hillary ... (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Alvord on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:59:48 PM EST
    ...wins more delegates in the primaries and caucuses but the super delegates decide to give the nomination to Obama I wonder if Donna Brazile and Chris Bowers will follow through on their threat to quit the Democratic party?

    Yes, and (none / 0) (#42)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:05:51 PM EST
    as they quit the party, monkeys will fly from their backsides.

    Parent
    This is where EXPERIENCE (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:06:06 PM EST
    comes into play. Sen Clinton knows the rules of Superdelegates. My opinion...Sen Obama is showing his inexperience.... that's the flip-flops.

    But I'm not sure her knowledge will help her. I have a sinking feeling that she is the underdog all around.

    If they stick with the rules,I believe she could pull this out... but will they stick with the rules (even if the rules are not very balance for the actual voters).

    Sticking with the rules is what they will do (none / 0) (#89)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:26:13 PM EST
    They're just going to make it all high drama. In the end, whether Hillary goes to Denver up 10 or Obama goes in up 3, the leader in pledged delegates will be the nominee, and thus the 44th President of the United States. All this drama is just their way of confirming that, aside from Dean's attempt to get somebody to drop out, and what do you all think the chances of that are?

    Remember, SD's don't vote, ie, become pledged, until Denver. They'll endorse the people's choice. To do otherwise would not only be undemocratic, it would be unDemocratic.

    Parent

    Define People's Choice (none / 0) (#104)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:43:30 PM EST
    SDs are seated as part of their state delegations.  Should they choose the leader in pledged delegates, popular vote, or the person who won their state?  Any of these is defensible to me.


    Parent
    I'm going with the scenario where they (none / 0) (#131)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:31:53 PM EST
    give the final push to the person closest to 2025, since that is what defines victory without their participation.

    If Obama or Hillary get to 2025, the other could have 10K or 10M more raw votes, but they still will not be the nominee.

    Winning = 2025 delegates. Whoever shows up in Denver closest to that # goes on to crush McCain.

    That's my opinion, and based on the system, I think is the most likely outcome.

    She could still sweep TX, OH, PA, WI, and make it all moot. Same for him.

    Parent

    and still (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:06:31 PM EST
    What if Clinton wins the popular vote and Obama wins the delegates?  

    In Nevada, when this happened, Obama said he won.  In Alabama, where Clinton got more delegates, Obama said he won.

    He has often stated that "his" voters will more than likely not vote for Hillary.  If you want to read into that, you could argue several different ways as to who "his" voters are.

    If I were a superdelegate, and I heard him threatening me not to "give" the election to Clinton, I would be consumed with rage.  A junior senator, not even finished with his term, telling the democratic party what it should do?  I don't think so.

    And don't forget (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:14:24 PM EST
    A junior senator who can't win big blue states and can't win most states with the more democratic primary systems....

    Parent
    I Think The Implied Threats Have Been (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:18:27 PM EST
    very effective. Not only that, there has been no real push back from the other side. So basically, they are hearing only one side of the argument.

    Parent
    I would imagine (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:53:06 PM EST
    any threats from the Clintons are being made in private and not on record.

    Honestly, Obama's posturing on this issue is deplorable, and Donna Brazile saying she'll leave the party...it just reinforces my strong belief that it is Obama and his camp who are tearing apart the party.

    I have to say, if this is the new face of the democratic party, I can understand why some are leaving it.

    Parent

    To Me That Is The Whole Point (none / 0) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:21:56 PM EST
    Back room discussions not intended to sway public opinion or show the party as completely fractured if a particular result is achieved is one thing. But to the best of my knowledge, Clinton has never publicly said her voters would not vote for Obama and to date, no women's group supporting her has publicly said that they would leave the party if the rules were not adjusted to her favor.

    So any private comments made by Clinton are backed up with strong public statements from her supporters and that is IMO how the party is getting a one sided view.

    I'm not suggesting that Clinton's supporters should go public. But I think the lack of public outcry on her behalf by her supporters might lead the party to think that there will be no ramifications if they bend the rules to accommodate Obama.

    Parent

    Democratic leadership (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by tek on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:53:02 PM EST
    in D. C. is behind Obama, that's how he feels confident to be so arrogant.

    Parent
    What a crock. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by tek on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:44:49 PM EST
    "overturn the wishes of voters" That's exactly what Dick Durbin did when he decided to draft Obama and put out the hit on Hillary. It just makes me furious that Durbin decided to run a black candidate to hurt Hillary because he was afraid he wouldn't have as much power under a Clinton.  It's exactly like the Republicans ruining McCain so they could get a puppet. If Durbin's crowd can get Obama in the WH, they'll be the real power in the land because he's too inexperienced. Well, so much for the Power of the People and the greatest "democracy" on earth.

    The winner of pledged delegates should be it. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:06:34 PM EST
    But of course this is a strong HRC audience, so Obama is going to get shredded for this. He made a joke that his superdelegates should stick with him, and admitted that they had not really discussed what should happen with the super-delegates. Why, considering that it's still February, can we not wait to think this out? The uncommitted supers I saw on the morning talk go-round were clearly hoping that we the voters would decide this thing, and that they would not have to cast a vote. Are we not all rooting for this? That the regular people pick the nominee?

    As for the idea of super delegates acting essentially as electoral votes, ie, all going to the winner of their state, that is clearly not something Obama wants to see, and based on her position that they maintain their independence, it's not Hillary's position, either.

    The issue as I remember it originally being posed was, "What if the country picks one candidate, but the establishment overturns that choice?" That was the question. What if Obama beat Hillary by the few votes his campaign's spreadsheet predicted by the end of June, only to fall short of the 2025 in pledged delegates and see Hillary become the nominee based on these independent super delegates? That is, how would the voters react, not Obama, and not Hillary, should the shoe be on the other foot. It was, "Can Democrats still seize the election if their establishment crowns a winner opposite of the one picked by the voters?" Since these supers don't vote until they actually get to Denver (until then they can claim to support either w/o it meaning anything), the likelihood of them giving the nod to the candidate who finishes second in the caucuses/primaries is very slim. They are professionals, after all, and they would not even begin to try to make that sell that "we know bette than you." If they did, the GOP would probably dominate US politics for the next 16 years, minimum. People would be highly upset. The bubble would burst for the winner, and that would be a shame since both candidates have highly enthused supporters at the moment, with a virtual guarantee to win in November. If Hillary wins TX, OH, PA, WI, yada yada and gets more pledged delegates, she should be the nominee, and likewise for Obama. That is what would be best for the party, and in the end that is what we're all supposed to be about.

    As for using the popular vote rather than the pledged delegate count, why would you do that? That would make the idea of awarding delegates pointless. This has been a delegate race from the start, and the winner of that should be the next president of the United States (and we will win, right??)

    Go Democrats!! Take back Washington and turn this country around!

    Re: (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Steve M on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:11:36 PM EST
    Your argument has a clear contradiction: we should reject superdelegates because they are undemocratic, but we should look to pledged delegates, even those obtained through undemocratic caucuses, rather than the popular vote because... uh.... because that's what the rules are!  Well, the rules also state that superdelegates can vote as they please.

    Hillary Clinton may be the popular vote winner and almost certainly will be the choice of more registered Democrats than Obama.  Nevertheless, she may not get the nomination because of the rules.  That's fine, but if your allegiance is to the rules rather than to popular preference, then you can't pick and choose only the rules you like.  You have to accept the rules about superdelegates too.

    Parent

    I would also like to point out (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:19:25 PM EST
    That Obama's definition of "winning" a state seems to change depending on whether he got more of the popular vote or more of the delegates.

    Though, CNN still has Clinton ahead in the delegate race, which is interesting.  Any news from NM on the recount?

    Parent

    Careful, you'll give the game away... (none / 0) (#117)
    by Camorrista on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:54:59 PM EST
    The rules are the rules.

    Clinton won the popular vote in Nevada, but Obama got more delegates.  The rules are the rules.

    Clinton won the popular vote in Michigan and Florida, but the vote didn't count.  The rules are the rules.

    Super-delegates are encouraged to mirror the votes of primary and caucus delegates, but not obliged to.  The rules are the rules.  Oops. Not.

    From Lewis Carroll:

    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."

    By the way, this is for your eyes only; I know better than to try to persuade the Obama folk.

    Parent

    Obama claims Alabama (none / 0) (#141)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:51:49 PM EST
    even though Hillary got more delegates.  

    Per CNN

    He claims NV because he won more delegates (while Hillary won the popular vote), so shouldn't Hillary claim AL?

    The rules may be the rules, but the hypocrisy is the hypocrisy too!

    Parent

    There is no alternative (none / 0) (#96)
    by Hypatias Father on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:32:51 PM EST
    but to accept the rules.  Sure, with emotions running this high many people are going to pull their hair and wail to the winds, but the cold fact is that even if it comes down to super-delegates, only one candidate will emerge.

    And that is the candidate we must (and truly I believe will) support against the Republican alternative.  In the meantime, I wish more could sit back and enjoy the fact that we have a deeper roster than we have in a long time--at least not in my own 30-something lifetime.  Hillary rocks.  Obama rocks.   We rock.  N'est-ce pas? Porque non?

    Parent

    Nope, I elected my super-delegates (none / 0) (#125)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:17:14 PM EST
    most of them--my Dem governor, lieutenant governor, members of Congress, mayor, etc.

    Pledged delegates mean a lot of big donors, corporate types.  If it goes past the first or second ballots (depending upon state rules), they will be free to vote their corporate interests again.

    But the super-delegates are there because they know the big picture beyond their state, they have run for office and know what is needed to win -- to pick a winner for November nationwide, after a longterm campaign, not just a crowd-pleaser (and I consider both of our candidates to be crowd-pleasers) who came in for a few days before a local primary or, worse, a caucus.

    I'm really not motivated by passions of the moment, and neither are super-delegates.  They and I are not looking at who wins some red state or dinky state now; we're looking at November and winning the nation to win back the White House.

    And then the super-delegates have to come back and get my vote again.  Pledged delegates don't, but I  will be glad to see them keep writing big checks.

    Parent

    Superdelegates (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by reynwrap582 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:23:59 PM EST
    The talk all over the blogs and national news since Tuesday has seemed kind of ridiculous.  The superdelegates have been around for ages and now all of a sudden people are realizing they can sway an election? Please.  Obama would have been better off not saying anything about what the SDs should or will do and continue to lobby them privately (and I'm sure they lobbying sounds more like "vote for me" and less like "vote for your constituency" like he so gallantly claims in public).

    I personally am not bothered by the superdelegates.  The primary isn't really a national election, and there are numerous problems with it, but I don't think the superdelegates are one of them.

    The superdelegates are people who are in one way or another, involved in the democratic party.  They're the people who make up the democratic representation, and the people who operate, maintain and promote the democratic party.  Without the people who are superdelegates, there would BE no democratic party.

    In a race that's close enough for it to really matter, whether the superdelegates push Candidate A over the threshold, or Candidate B over the threshold, half of the dem voters are not having their voices heard anyway.  It's a no-win situation.

    It's important to remember that this is not a national election for the leader of the country, it's essentially a private election for the leader of the party.

    The way I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong), the pledged delegates essentially become superdelegates on the second round anyway.

    I'm all for letting the superdelegates help decide who best represents the ideals and qualities of the democratic party when the voters can't. Many of the superdelegates are going to be involved doing the work to get that person elected in November.  Their input should be of great value.  Equating it to "smoke-filled back rooms" is silly because the voters had their chance to decide and ended with a split decision.

    Playing politics (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Fultron on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:37:01 PM EST
    If Obama can't win the political game to resolve MI/FL in his favor and get enough super-delegates within his own party, how does he expect to accomplish any change in Washington?

    Thanks, I'll wait to see what (4.40 / 5) (#1)
    by MarkL on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:07:29 PM EST
    Josh Marshall has to say about this. I'm sure he can explain Obama's hypocrisy away.

    Enough with the Josh hate-fest (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by magster on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:40:41 PM EST
    He's done more for strengthening the voice of progressive netroots than practically every blogger out there, and was key in keeping the Gonzalez firing scandal alive.

    Parent
    That was before (4.00 / 1) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:42:17 PM EST
    the ratings wars.  Now, he's become tabloid.  

    Parent
    Hilarious that you make this comment (none / 0) (#59)
    by Geekesque on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:25:18 PM EST
    on this blog.

    Parent
    What is that supposed to mean? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:32:14 PM EST
    That we are tabloid? Please clarify your meaning.

    Parent
    I would like an answer to my question (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:53:45 PM EST
    or I am going to assume the worst.

    Please do not comment further today until you respond to my comment.

    Parent

    Speaking of all the good things he's done (4.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MarkL on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:42:55 PM EST
    you have to wonder why TPMmuckraker hasn't used their own resources to examine the Obama house deal with Rezko. It's right up their alley. If Obama DID do something illegal, they could figure it out.

    Parent
    You are so right on this. TPM is supposed to be (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Angel on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:49:40 PM EST
    the investigative blog, so let's get to it, Josh.  If there's nothing to the Rezco deal then report it as so.  But let's investigate it and then make the facual decision.  I used to respect TPM and Josh but no longer.  He has partaken of the kool-aid and is drunk on it.  Help him, he can't get up....

    Parent
    I Don't Think (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:15:02 PM EST
    TPM spends nearly as much time investigating alleged democratic misdeeds.  They've covered democratic misdoings, but not to the same extent.  Which is fine with me, they don't claim not to have a preference between democrats and republicans.  

    I have no intention of lobbying TPM and other progressive voices to go after Obama.  I just wish they'd stop printing MSM BS narratives about Clinton.

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#88)
    by MarkL on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:25:22 PM EST
    if there is nothing, good for Obama. However, since so many questions have been raised about Obama and Rezko, why not clear the air? I would consider a TPMmuckraker opinion of very high value.

    Parent
    Didn't this blog (none / 0) (#35)
    by magster on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:58:11 PM EST
    already say Rezko wasn't much of anything?  Why should TPM get involved?

    Parent
    This blog (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:01:29 PM EST
    did not say TPM should investigate Rezko.

    Commenters are saying it.

    We are not one and the same.

    Parent

    Talkleft does not have the resources. (none / 0) (#85)
    by MarkL on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:22:27 PM EST
    Tpm does. I tend to think now that there isn't anything illegal to the deal; however, there are enough complications that I don't feel comfortable.

    Parent
    Hillary has the resources, and if there was a (none / 0) (#93)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:29:48 PM EST
    smoking gun, she would have produced it prior to Super Tuesday. S

    As close as this race is, if there was any dirt worthy of throwing, Obama would have been buried long ago. She flung what mud she could with Rezko, but it really turned out to be not much.

    Parent

    That's a good point. (none / 0) (#97)
    by MarkL on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:34:47 PM EST
    Of course, Hillary's camp would NOT release a story about Obama's home, IMO.

    Parent
    Maybe not, but if she's facing the prospect (none / 0) (#129)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:26:23 PM EST
    of losing, and if she believes McCain does not share her scruples (and let's face it, he doesn't), then do you think she'd let him go head long into a buzzsaw?

    Parent
    Where is the (none / 0) (#54)
    by IndependantThinker on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:16:15 PM EST
    MONEY.

    Parent
    Enough with sacred cows (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:48:04 PM EST
    Empty slogans like yours are what allows pernicious sexism and racism to exist.

    We call out flaws and demand better from everyone, including our allies.

    Your comment is offensive to me.

    Did you make the same aergument for Bill Clinton's reprehensible comments? I assure you he has done much more for progressivism than Josh Marshall EVER WILL.

    I truly despise remarks like yours.


    Parent

    I have defended Pres. Clinton (none / 0) (#46)
    by magster on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:09:33 PM EST
    often, and Hillary too.  The 90's were like the enlightenment compared to the last eight years, and I have no problem voting for Clinton in the general.

    But the holier than thou arguments and other blog bashing that has gotten exponentially worse since Super Tuesday is totally out of control considering that many commenters are as myopic about Clinton as Kos commenters are about Obama.

    And your comment to me that my empty statement allows sexism and racism is 10x as offensive as my comment. Shuster's comment was beyond offensive, and I've said so to anyone who's asked.

    Parent

    Marshall's behavior has been disgraceful (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:12:59 PM EST
    I have said so and WILL CONTIN?UE TO SAY SO.

    Bill Clinton's remarks in South Carolina were despicable  and I HAVE SAID SO AND WILL CONTINUE TO SAY SO.

    HaAving sacred cows as you suggest is the malign acceptance of pernicious racism and sexism.

    I will NEVER go along with that. EVER. Your suggestion that we have sacred cows is offensive to me.


    Parent

    Who said anything about sacred cows? (none / 0) (#58)
    by magster on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:20:34 PM EST
    Criticise Josh when appropriate. I have no problem with that. This whole thing started when the original commenter just pulled some criticism about what Josh would hypothetically say out of his backside, and it gets uprated by the groupies.  Josh has done enough to not have words put in his mouth before he's even said anything.  And I've seen that a lot in the comments about Josh and Kos, and its BS.

    Parent
    You said to lay off of Josh (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:31:25 PM EST
    because he was so wonderful.

    That is the very definition of creating sacred cows.

    Your own comment was awful. If you wanted to say "do not put words in Josh's mouth" then WRITE THAT. that is NOT what you wrote at all.

    You wanted Josh to be off limits because of all his good work.

    Your comemnt offended me and I will criticize such suggestions ALWAYS.


    Parent

    I said stop the hate-fest (none / 0) (#71)
    by magster on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:03:31 PM EST
    becuase of what he's done.

    Criticising isn't hate.  Pulling Josh's name out of one's ass to make a cheap shot is.

    Parent

    And stop the hatefest because (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:04:50 PM EST
    Josh is so wonderful.

    The very definition of a sacred cow.

    Please be honest enough to admit the obvious.


    Parent

    I'd defend you (none / 0) (#78)
    by magster on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:18:05 PM EST
    against a similar cheap shot for similar reasons, notwithstanding your obnoxiousness in this back and forth.

    Parent
    If you think I did something wrong (none / 0) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:53:35 PM EST
    then I implore you to SAY SO.

    Do not defend my wrong actions.

    Parent

    Sorry, Tent (none / 0) (#53)
    by Dadler on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:15:08 PM EST
    Bill Clinton is a conservative corporate democrat.  Being progressive is not, nor ever has been, his game.  Were it, gays in the military would've been a done deal the minute he took office.  But he was a coward and the polar opposite of progressive.  Just as he was on welfare "reform", which was disgusting considering he was a welfare kid for awhile.  Clinton is a likable buy, with a very tight intellect, but he's not committed progressive.  At all.

    That said, I like the guy, and I hope he becomes more progressive, hell, more radical, as he grows older.  But I'm not holding my breath.


    Parent

    Unity, Baby (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:23:40 PM EST
    This meme about Bill Clinton is ridiculous.  No wonder democrats lose all the time, we happily destroy our own.

    For what I hope is the last time, Bill Clinton tried to open up the military to gays almost immediately upon taking office.  The Republicans screamed like stuck pigs and got the backing of such fine Unity Democrats as Sam Nunn.  What killed gays in the military was not Bill Clinton, it was Democrats in Congress who sided with their Republican counterparts on the issue.  

    As for welfare reform, Clinton was up for re-election and was under pressure from conservative Democrats, independents and Republicans (also known as the Obama base) to sign a bill.   He still vetoed the first two bills because he didn't think they were liberal enough, but did finally sign the third.

    I've noticed throughout this race is that I have not heard Barack Obama say he opposed the welfare reform bill.   And I won't because it was incredibly popular with independent voters, the ones Obama and his supporters are always catering to.   The difference is that Bill Clinton catered to them when the conservative movement was still strong.  Obama is caving to them when the conservative movement is on the verge of collapse.

    Parent

    Josh (none / 0) (#36)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    did not strengthen MY voice.  He does not speak for me.  He does not have my support.  He has completely destroyed his credibility.

    Parent
    What's Clinton's position on superdelegates? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:14:02 PM EST
    Or, even more important, what are the superdelegates' individual positions on how superdelegates should vote? If a superdelegate feels that having Obama at the top of the ticket will make it easier to be reelected, is that a legitimate reason to vote for him?

    By the way, the rule which makes Florida's and Michigan's primaries bogus, that's still a rule that's a rule?

    Clinton believes (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:18:12 PM EST
    that superdelegates get to vote as they wish and she is lobbying for their support. The rules suggest this is correct.

    The Florida and Michigan delegations will not be seated unless the Convention's credentials committee decides otherwise as the rules allow.

    Parent

    And To Be Fair to Clinton (none / 0) (#109)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:47:54 PM EST
    That's consistent with what she said about Florida and Michigan delegates - she said she would urge her delegates to support seating them, which is entirely within the rules.  I've seen her supporters, including me, argue that they should be seated, but I haven't seen anyone from the Clinton camp arguing the rules for seating them should be changed.  They are certainly going to try to lobby for their seating, but that's consistent with the rules.  Just as lobbying super delegates is.

    Now, I don't for a moment think Clinton would be doing this if she had lost Michigan and Florida.

    I also think there are issues for Democrats, beyond the individual candidates, about what happens to these delegates, particularly the Florida delegates.   I think it's bad for the party if this issue ends with no Florida delegates being seated, but that's not the same thing as thinking that every one of them must be seated.  

    Parent

    I don't understand what all the fuss is over (none / 0) (#5)
    by s5 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:24:08 PM EST
    There are no "rules" about what superdelegates can do. Both campaigns are trying to persuade them to get their votes. Whoever persuades more gets the advantage.

    So, any discussion beyond this about rules or principles or hypocrisy is irrelevant. Superdelegates can vote for whoever they want, and candidates can make any case they want to persuade them. Obviously a candidate will make an argument that favors their own campaign.

    There is no principle at stake. Both candidates are trying to win. Harping on this issue isn't going to change anyone's mind, though it probably will be good for whipping up some outrage.

    Can you explain the argument (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:28:15 PM EST
    Obama is making? I do not understand it.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#19)
    by s5 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:45:53 PM EST
    I don't think he's making an argument so much as he's trying to push buttons and pressure superdelegates. Clearly he wants it both ways: he wants the superdelegates in states where he won the popular vote, and in the other states, he wants the superdelegates to vote for him anyway, but for less concrete reasons.

    The overriding principle is that he wants their votes, and some will see the logic of giving their vote to the winner of the popular vote in their state, while others may wish to vote for him because they might believe he would be good for the party as the nominee. From where I'm sitting, it looks like he's trying to put both appeals out there at the same time.

    In a nutshell, he's being savvy. Politics is won by persuasion, not by who is most consistent about arbitrary rules (and in the case of superdelegates, the rules truly are arbitrary). We'll see if his strategy is successful.

    I'm going to come out and say that the CW is wrong, and we'll get a clear pledged delegate winner. All this rallying for superdelegates appears to me as more of an insurance policy. But who knows!

    Parent

    But you do nsee the contradictions (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:52:06 PM EST
    in his statements right?

    There is no coherent moral high ground here for Obama.

    Parent

    There's no high or low ground here (none / 0) (#121)
    by s5 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:02:40 PM EST
    To me a moral issue is whether or not society chooses to help its poor and hungry, or bomb innocent people in foreign countries, or etc. Playing the rules of an election to your advantage has nothing to do with morality - as long as you're not breaking those rules or cheating, of course.

    Yes, he's arguing both ways, while hedging that of course it's up to the individual delegates to think long and hard. Yes, it's contradictory. But, since there are no actual rules for how superdelegates are bound to vote, he can make any argument or arguments he wants. So can Clinton, and she will, just as she's been happy to try and have Michigan and Florida both ways.

    All this illustrates is the absurdity of our patchwork primary system. I don't blame either of the candidates for playing the rules to their advantage. They're both savvy politicians who know what it takes to win. And honestly I think this bodes well for our party, after years and years of "playing nice" and losing every single legislative battle.

    Also this primary has been really good for us. The last time around, the only lesson we learned was "why did we allow Iowa to choose Kerry for the rest of the country". Now that the primary is going to every state and to the superdelegate phase, we can truly see in crystal clear detail just how ridiculous the system is.

    Hopefully enough party activists are taking notes and will be left with a bad enough taste in their mouths to do something about it after the election is over. Some will throw temper tantrums and threaten to leave the party if the superdelegates don't follow some arbitrary standard that was never enshrined in the process. Others will stick around and improve the system for next time.

    In the meantime, I don't blame either candidate for playing the rules and arguing whatever is most favorable for them. It's not a nice game. It's politics.

    Parent

    Obama is a hypocrite.....of the worst kind. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Angel on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:51:19 PM EST


    Parent
    I do not think (none / 0) (#30)
    by Hypatias Father on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:52:50 PM EST
    there is much of an argument to be understood.  It seemed for a moment that Obama was going to organize a push for the super-delegates to fall in line with either the state-by-state popular votes or pledged delegates.  For the time being, this argument is now being modified...  possibly because they now realize that super-delegated outcomes may work in Obama's favor, after all.  

    This kind of equivocation has come to characterize both camps, unfortunately.

    Parent

    I haven't noticed any equivocation by (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:55:13 PM EST
    the Clinton campaign on following the rules.  Please clarify your statement.

    Parent
    On florida and Michigan (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    Definitely an flip flop.

    Parent
    Did the Clinton campaign ever (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:03:01 PM EST
    state MI and FL delegates should be seated irrespective of the rules (which do permit seatting the delegates under specified conditions)?  

    Parent
    They said it would not count (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:09:23 PM EST
    They have flip flopped.

    Everybody is a shameless hypcorite.

    Parent

    Indeed, (none / 0) (#51)
    by Hypatias Father on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:14:42 PM EST
    this is the lamentable take-home point.  

    Parent
    Yes! Oh my, BTD, a voice of reason! (none / 0) (#103)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:43:13 PM EST
    Thanks for being fair in criticizing both camps.

    Of course, they both want all 796 super delegates, so they will make whatever case is appropriate for the audience they're facing. This is all about rhetoric, and whatever makes your case is what you go with.

    I personally think Obama's strongest case is to those seeking election this year. His lower negative will mean that HRC is more of a risk for a lot of Congressman.

    Is it true that Obama was the most requested Democrat campaigner in 2004 or 2006?

    Parent

    Honestly, I'm not sure (none / 0) (#48)
    by Hypatias Father on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:13:01 PM EST
    what the official campaign position for either Obama or Clinton is on this issue, though I am reading more and more via helpful references on left-center blogs; but, in any case, that is surely a topic for another thread.  

    My statement re. equivocation was aimed at each of the candidate's "camps"--which includes, well, everyone who has a vocal affiliation.  

    Parent

    Question (none / 0) (#63)
    by muffie on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:38:21 PM EST
    how would you feel if Obama made the statement that he would tell his pledged superdelegates to support the winner of their states if Clinton did the same?  (Note: I suspect he would agree to this, as it's to his political advantage, but he has certainly not made such a statement.)

    Parent
    He'll never say that (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:39:44 PM EST
    He would lose the nomination if he said that.

    Parent
    HRC Might Want to Propose That (none / 0) (#90)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:28:23 PM EST
    Offer to release her super delegates, if he'll release his so that each state gets represented based on its popular vote.  

    He'd never agree to it, but it might be fun to watch him explain why he won't agree to it.  

    Parent

    I Should Add (none / 0) (#92)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:29:24 PM EST
    That even if Obama and HRC would agree on something like this (which Obama won't), it still won't work because the super delegates can't be bound by such an agreement and each would worry about getting screwed in the end.  

    Parent
    Superdelegates exist by rule (none / 0) (#10)
    by magster on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:32:02 PM EST
    and Obama has every right to pressure and campaign the superdelegates to vow to support the pledged delegate winner and to argue that the Democratic party and its relationship with African Americans would be destroyed if he wins pledged delegates and still loses to Clinton.  It's a good strategy because its true.

    The problem is (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Lena on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:42:48 PM EST
    that he's implying that any decisions by the superdelegates that involve him not getting enough superdelegates must involve disenfranchisement and unfairness. Whichever way the wind blows, he's trying to pretend that his way of divvying up superdelegates is the only fair way, and that the system will be unfair if his ideas aren't implemented as to the superdelegates. And then some of his supporters are running with it, insisting that if it doesn't go Barack's way, they'll quit the party.

    Plus, look at the quote where he says that the superdelegates will have to think "long and hard" before choosing a side - it almost sounds like a threat to me. I listen to him, and he sounds like a hypocrite who's whipping up the crowds.

    Parent

    All the talk of quitting is assuming (none / 0) (#114)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:53:10 PM EST
    he wins the pledged delegate vote. The disenfranchisement occurs ONLY if he wins the pledged delegate vote. And I doubt he's given any interviews where he assumes a loss in pledged delegates, so in any case he would be saying the SD's should break his way, b/c in every scenario he'd consider he would have more pledged delegates.

    If he loses pledged delegates, and then the SD's go with Clinton, do you really think Brazile will quit the party??

    That is not the case, not what she said. You're trying to make it sound as though they said, "Unless Obama is the nominee, we quit." That's not it. They said, "If he wins the pledged count, but loses the nomination, we're out."

    Why is that so hard to follow?

    Parent

    Is that his position? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:36:02 PM EST
    That A-A will boycott the GE?

    I did not read that.

    I DARE him to say that.

    Parent

    Who said boycott? (none / 0) (#22)
    by magster on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:48:32 PM EST
    I said relationship would be destroyed.  Obama is pulling in 85 to 90 % of the A-A vote, and the Superdelegates would say f-you to those voters if Obama is the clear pledged delegate leader going into the convention.  It's a fair argument for him to make when the time comes.

    And the same would go for the youth vote.  All this young enthusiasm and activism that Obama has tapped into will melt into cynicism and apathy.  

    (BTW: the reverse is true if Hillary is the pledged delegate leader going in and the Supers would elect Obama.  If this happened, the women that have overwhelmingly supported Clinton would and should revolt.)

    Parent

    Women Scwomen (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by tek on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:51:29 PM EST
    Hillary's following is not just women, she has a majority of registered Democrats. So the Superdelegates would be telling traditional Democrats to take a flying leap. I am ready to follow that advice.

    Parent
    What if Clinton is the clear votes leader? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:51:20 PM EST
    You really are twisitng this into unbearable contortions.

    The idea is what? Pledged delegates determine this? That superdelegate are not REALLY independent?

    What of Obama's posiiton of voting with their states?

    These ludicrous defenses are too much.

    But answer me this IS Obama arguing that the Dem Party relationship with A-As will be destroyed?

    Again, I DARE him to make that argument.

    Parent

    I don't know if Obama has (none / 0) (#49)
    by magster on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:14:05 PM EST
    or not.  It would be premature now.

    Parent
    He should NEVER say it (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:18:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Dean should (none / 0) (#79)
    by magster on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:19:06 PM EST


    Parent
    No one should say it (none / 0) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:51:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Why should raw votes matter? (none / 0) (#119)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:57:49 PM EST
    After all, if it was all about raw votes, why not just pick the nominee that way, by national popular vote?

    What's ludicrous is injecting another issue (popular vote) which currently plays no role in the process into the conversation.

    SD's are independent, and they would not be bound to vote for the pledged delegate winner. It would just be smart and good for the party to do so, because to do otherwise would kill the enthusiasm the party has among voters right now.

    Do you at least see that aspect of it?

    Parent

    If you're want to kill the enthusiasm of voters, (none / 0) (#124)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:11:05 PM EST
    try telling them that their raw votes don't matter.  SuperDs can do what they want.  They can consider or fail to consider anything they want, they can flip a coin, whatever.  You can't say they shouldn't consider the popular vote.  It would not be unreasonable for them to consider for whom the majority of the people voted.

    Parent
    But CNN doesn not keep the raw vote count (none / 0) (#128)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:23:11 PM EST
    up on their screen. They keep the delegate vote. That is the clearly defined priority, and both campaigns have said so. It's all about getting to 2025, not 10 million.

    They could consider it, sure, but I think they would unwise to do so.

    It's like having a horse race, and deciding at the end that the fastest horse didn't win b/c the placing horse ran farther. That's not what they raced for.

    Parent

    Not my point (none / 0) (#133)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:35:55 PM EST
    Of course it is about delegates -- the sum of superdelegates and the delegates who are chosen via primary or caucus.  You have to get to the magic number.  But superdelegates are not bound to do the same thing as the other delegates that result from the primaries and caucuses.  They just aren't, no matter what CNN puts up on the screen.

    It could very well be that the Democratic nominee does not have the majority of the people's votes.  I think that's a problem--I understand that it's allowed within the rules, but it's not a very satisfactory solution.  Superdelegates may feel differently than me.  That's their right.

    Parent

    Yes, they could choose to approach it that way. (none / 0) (#137)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:48:20 PM EST
    My point was that when they look at it, as party professionals, they will say to themselves, "Well, you need 2025 to get a win. Obama has 1,630 to Clinton's 1,623.  If we split down the middle, like the rest of the country, Obama will have 2028, and that makes him the winner. If we want people to believe in their voice, we should probably do that. She did lose, after all."

    That's how I think that scenario would play out. If they said instead, "Well, she came within 7 delegates, but she beat him by 50k votes, so let's push her over the top," people would feel like the system was rigged, like the delegate race really didn't matter, that in the end the SD's picked the party machine candidate anyway.

    If that happened, so many of the Obama voters would feel like they wasted there time that the party would risk never getting them back.

    Even though in the above scenario she won the popular vote, the rules governing the entire primary campaign have been "win the most delegates." When that rule is switched to "win the most votes" b/c the independent professionals decided it should be that way, then regular folks will determine that the party doesn't really need them, despite what both Obama and Clinton have been saying for over a year. Subsequently, the turnout in November would drop to the point that McCain could rally instead of losing maybe 35 states like they deserve to this fall.

    Switch the roles for the two candidates above and the outcome stays the same. Whether he gets jobbed or she does, it won't matter. Delegate winner at the end of June should = nominee.

    Parent

    You've been suspended for the day by Jeralyn (none / 0) (#142)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:56:15 PM EST
    See you tomorrow.

    Parent
    Re: (none / 0) (#143)
    by Steve M on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:56:26 PM EST
    That's silly.  The superdelegates do not all meet in a room and decide to split exactly 50/50.

    Some may decide to go with whoever won the most delegates, some may decide to go with whoever won the most voters, some may decide to go with whoever won the overwhelming majority of registered Democrats.  Some may decide for entirely different reasons.  But it's not going to be a massive group decision.

    Parent

    You won;t mind then if th SDs (none / 0) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:33:20 PM EST
    all swing to Hillary and hand her the nomination.

    At least you are consistent.

    Parent

    i definitely think that's the implication (none / 0) (#55)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:16:57 PM EST
    but the truth is more likely that only the any rand democrats will sit it out on his behalf.  

    Parent
    So if Corringe Brown (none / 0) (#13)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:39:43 PM EST
    Who is african american should decide she likes Obama she can't because Clinton won in Fl?

    Parent
    That is outright blackmail (none / 0) (#25)
    by Steve M on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:49:48 PM EST
    There is a reason he is not saying any such thing, although it's certainly the subtext out here in the blogosphere.

    Parent
    Absolutely! That is what will happen. (none / 0) (#107)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:47:19 PM EST
    Assuming he wins the pledged delegate count. If he loses, he should support Hillary. Let the people decide.

    Imagine, all the people have gotten excited and voted on both sides, and in the end it's not them who decides the winner. What do you think November's turnout would be?

    We'd be inaugurating President McCain in January 2009.

    Parent

    Pledged Delegate Leader (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:48:47 PM EST
    Will not necessarily represent the popular vote winner.  That's one of the problems.  

    Parent
    Why is it a problem? (none / 0) (#122)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:04:25 PM EST
    The party rules for determining the nomination require delegates, not votes. Votes only determine delegates, which are the real determining factor.

    I see the point, but to make that an issue would really controvert the system. People are following the delegate count. Only serious junkies follow votes, since they don't really matter.

    The winner needs 2025. If neither HRC nor BO gets there, then the one who is closest--be it her or him--should be given the final push by the SD's.

    That would make the system appear most fair to the voters. If it was just about votes, candidates would only go to CA, TX, NY, OH, PA, IL, GA, FL, MA, WI, and be done with it. The system is set up for delegates, so that should be the determining factor.

    Parent

    wether the Fl and MI primaries count or not (none / 0) (#11)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:32:21 PM EST
    the Florida and Michigan Reps Senators and Politicos who are super delegates will still be voting in the convention.  So the point is these are two very big delegate rich states, and if you claim that super delegates should vote as their state did... you can see who would get those super delegates.

    I don't believe that's right (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:31:30 PM EST
    I think they got stripped of their seats as well.  In fact, I think that's fairer - to strip the DNC leaders in MI who changed the primary rather than the MI voters.  But what do I know, I think Howard Dean was incredibly stupid to play the Republican game in Florida.

    Parent
    Yeah, cutting FL and MI was a stupid move. (none / 0) (#123)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:10:36 PM EST
    What did he really hope to gain by doing that? Did he just want to guarantee the GOP would carry FL?

    As for their delegations now, I don't think you can seat them as is. That would be so totally unfair to say, "Well, they don't count, so don't go there" only to say later, "Well, we want them on board."

    Hillary wins on name recognition alone. At least reschedule the primaries and give each candidate a chance to compete. Maybe she still wins, but at least she'll know she won fairly.

    What we're really talking about here is fairness. After FL in '00 and OH in '04, the last thing the DNC wants is to appear to be part of that corruption.

    We have 2 people right now who something like 70% of us say would be great as far as we're concerned. Let's not lose that support over petty games. We still need to turn these people out again in November. That's the prize; let's keep our eye on it.

    Parent

    Sorry menat Corrine (none / 0) (#14)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:40:14 PM EST


    The difference between 'will' and 'should' (none / 0) (#20)
    by seand on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:46:01 PM EST
    I don't get how there's any incoherence here. Obama said, in the first quotation, that he thinks superdelegates will vote for whomever wins the most pledged delegates overall; the second is, if anything, about how his superdelegates should vote. It doesn't take a subtle philosophical mind to see that these are claims about entirely different things, and so couldn't possible contradict one another.

    Bwa ha (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:48:55 PM EST
    Sure. Ok.

    Parent
    halstoon (none / 0) (#82)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:21:36 PM EST
    You are disgusting.  Every new thread, you ramp up and ramp up, and then you sputter out crap like this.  It does nothing but diminish your character.

    his last comment was deleted (none / 0) (#138)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:48:36 PM EST
    and he's on notice. He tends to hijack threads and is dangerously close to being a shill and a chatterer.

    Halstoon, you are limited to four comments a day.

    Parent

    found this on MyDD: (none / 0) (#95)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:32:40 PM EST
    "there's a basic principle in politics- don't trash your base.

    recent exit polls:

    CA  male 46%, FEMALE 56%
    MA  male 42%, FEMALE 58%
    IL    male 41%, FEMALE 59%
    NY   male 42%, FEMALE 58%"

    (I combined two posts for the whole run-down)

    halstoon (none / 0) (#98)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:36:53 PM EST
    Have you actually followed this race from last Oct/Nov?

    Being from IL, I have watched the development of the "Darft Obama Movement" since IL Senators were involved. The names of the drafters in the beginning of the movement were men. Unfortuntely, the appearance was not really "up to par". Not only did you have the "Chicago machine" involment but the fore front was men.

    Getting Oprah involved gave the draft an actual women's voice. And she took a huge hit from women over the choice.

    Little know history this far in the race. It is not refernce much anymore. But certainly laid the foundation for the demographics.

    What gives (none / 0) (#100)
    by bob5540 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:38:14 PM EST
    What the f*** has happened to you? You (and as a result this blog) have become so anti-Obama and pro-Hillary now, I would drop in a faint if I ever came here and found you saying anything nice. I thought you said you were originally borderline leaning Obama? Now you seem to be on a crusade against Obama.

    Would you say evolutionists (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by blogtopus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:49:45 PM EST
    are partisan hacks as well? All I see in BTD is an attempt to keep the rules that apply to Hillary firmly applied to Obama. What's good for the goose, gander, you know the drill.

    It appears to be a solid pattern: Accusations are made against Hillary; Facts are delivered to show Obama is just as bad and/or worse, plus being hypocritical about it; Whining, accusations are made against the person who delivered the facts. Repeat.

    Really, you aren't doing Obama any favors by denying his obvious issues with hypocrisy. The reasonable way to handle this is to say why this issue won't be a problem in the GE.

    Also noticed something interesting here: I just now saw a comment that said Obama had it locked up, that the fix was in. I have heard several Obama supporters claim the very same thing about Hillary. It's a ridiculous argument, and only ends up making people look stupid as a result. Hillary does not have some grand conspiracy to lock up the vote; neither does Obama. I say that as a Hillary supporter.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#112)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:50:13 PM EST
    BTD is a (tepid) Obama supporter.

    Parent
    wow endorsement (none / 0) (#106)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:46:43 PM EST
    negotiations for Edwards underway

    What do you think of the idea that he would (none / 0) (#127)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:19:33 PM EST
    endorse Clinton? Some people have claimed that after running such a clear contrast to her vis a vie change that to join her team would destroy his credibility.

    I can see that, but I can also see him embracing the "gotta have the know-how" mantra she sells.

    In the end, if he does endorse her, I will respect him even less than I do (as a politician). It would just smack of hypocrisy after his campaign to not embrace a turning of the page.

    Parent

    Edwards Strongly Backed A Universal Health Care (none / 0) (#130)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:31:48 PM EST
    plan that is very similar to that proposed by Senator Clinton. Obama's plan is not Universal Health Care. Also, Obama attacked Universal Health Care with a "Harry and Louise" flier which jeopardizes any universal plan from being implemented. So IMO Edwards has as much if not more reason to back Hillary as he does Obama.

    That said, Edwards is a politician. So the question becomes, will his decision be issued based or based on what is politically more advantageous to him personally?

    Parent

    Has Hillary disclosed her enforcement (none / 0) (#134)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:35:57 PM EST
    mechanism for mandates?

    He did side with her on that issue, but I would caution him to look back to 1993, and to look at her comments about the upcoming negotiations when Obama suggested broadcsting them on CSPAN. As if he needs my counsel.

    Parent

    Obama's Plan Has Some Mandates (none / 0) (#135)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:44:54 PM EST
    His plan mandates that all parents insure their children. Has he disclosed exactly what enforcement mechanism he has for those mandates?

    His plan will allow young healthy adults to opt out insurance coverage even though that double the cost for everyone else. Wonder if that could have anything to do with the fact that group tends to vote for him.

    Parent

    So, that's a no.. (none / 0) (#140)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:51:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Not sure... (none / 0) (#136)
    by Hypatias Father on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:46:24 PM EST
    Edwards was my original candidate, and if he or someone who I respect equally as much (e.g. Gore) were to unequivocally endorse Clinton, then I have to admit it would make a huge difference.  I am a luke-warm supporter of Obama currently, but my preference would probably swing back more firmly toward Clinton's camp in that case.  

    To me change in one context does not mean support for any and every aspect of change.  Edwards was never about change just for change's sake, and IMHO that is a theme more aligned to Obama--which even now leaves me unmoved.

    Of course, one of the reasons I currently do feel more attracted to Obama has to do with my prediction that Edwards' themes are in fact more closely aligned to his than to Clinton's.  Nevertheless, if she begins to get big endorsements like his, I will shrug and wonder if maybe he knows something that I simply do not.

    Parent

    Please discuss that on the thread for it (none / 0) (#139)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:49:55 PM EST
    it's here.

    Parent
    The Credential Committee (none / 0) (#126)
    by ding7777 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:19:26 PM EST
    3 Chairs and 25 fixed Standing members. (pdf)

    These are the ones who get to decide the full 186 member Credentials Committee.  The CC will then decide who gets seated.

    What Is Obama's Position On Superdelegates? | 138 comments (138 topical)