home

Hillary's 11 Page Memo To Superdelegates

Bump and Update: Here is the 11 page memo (pdf)that accompanied Hillary's letter today that went out to more than 800 superdelegates and party officials. Some good points:

On February 8th, Senator Obama said that if someone had the most pledged delegates and the most votes in the country, that “it would be problematic for political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters.” It appears that when all the votes are counted on June 3rd, Hillary Clinton will be the candidate with the most votes. The automatic delegates then face the choice between one candidate with more pledged delegates and another candidate with more popular vote
[More...]

Hillary leads among these core constituencies: women, seniors, Latinos, working classs and rural voters.
Overall, more than 22 million Democratic primary voters were over the age of 45 this year, compared to less than 10 million who voted in the 2004 Democratic primaries.

Women primary voters rose from 7.56 million in the 2004 Democratic primaries to more than 21 million to date in 2008 – from 54% to 58% of the Democratic primary electorate. At the same time, Latinos increased from 9% to 12% of the Democratic primary electorate, from 1.26 million in 2004 to 4.42 million in 2008.

Only Hillary is positioned to win FL and Ohio, both critical in 2004. She does better with voters on the commander-in-chief issue and the economy.

She is more likely to win Ohio and Florida. Without these two states, it is a difficult road to the White House, especially against a candidate like Senator McCain, who is from the Southwest and enjoys considerable support among Latinos.

The electoral map: Hillary leads McCain by 120 while Obama trails him by 46.

The states Hillary Clinton has won in the primary have a total of 308 electoral votes; the states Senator Obama has won have a total of 224 electoral votes. Hillary won 7 of the 8 states with the most electoral votes – Senator Obama won his home state of Illinois.

...A different analysis at www.electoral-vote.com shows that Hillary outperforms Senator Obama against John McCain in the key swing states with the largest number of electoral votes – Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and Missouri – as well as smaller swing states like New Hampshire, West Virginia and Arkansas.

And yet another analysis, using recent public polls with general election match-ups in each state, shows that if the election were held tomorrow, Hillary Clinton would defeat Senator McCain with more than 300 electoral votes (329, when 270 is required to win) while Senator Obama would lose to Senator McCain with fewer than 250 electoral votes (246, to be exact).

Importantly, Hillary leads Senator McCain in Florida, Ohio, West Virginia and Arkansas – all states in which Senator Obama trails Senator McCain. And a May 22, 2008 Rasmussen poll shows Hillary leading Senator McCain in Kentucky 51/42, while Senator Obama trails Senator McCain by 25 points

Hillary has a broader geographic base of support. She has won 1,654 counties; Senator Obama has won 1,299 counties.

White women and Latinos played a big part in John Kerry losing in 2004. Hillary has much more of them:

In 2004, Bush’s victory over John Kerry was a result of the shift of two groups – Latinos and white women – in Bush’s favor. These are two of Hillary Clinton’s strongest groups. Hillary has won these two groups overwhelmingly in the Democratic primaries, and Hillary also generated huge turnout increases among both groups.

On the African American vote:

Hillary appreciates and respects the choice of many African American voters to support Senator Obama but she has never stopped working to gain their support. She has earned the endorsement of so many prominent African American leaders because they know her lifetime record of service on behalf of issues that are important to the African American community – working to help create the Children’s Health Insurance Program; fighting to raise the minimum wage; expanding and improving early childhood education; working to revitalize our cities; and sponsoring the Count Every Vote Act to ensure that every vote counts and every vote is counted. They know she will continue that work as President.

Hillary is committed to unifying the party, and she will never stop campaigning for the votes of African Americans in the race for the White House.

In closing:

The race will be decided by automatic delegates, with no candidate getting the majority of total delegates needed. Hillary Clinton will finish the primary season with more votes, the lead in public opinion polls as to who is best able to turn the economy around and be an effective Commander-in-Chief, and with the better chance of putting together the electoral map to win in November and take back the White House.

****

Hillary Clinton has written this letter to the Superdelegates. It ends with:

In the end, I am committed to unifying this party. What Senator Obama and I share is so much greater than our differences; and no matter who wins this nomination, I will do everything I can to bring us together and move us forward.

But at this point, neither of us has crossed the finish line. I hope that in the time remaining, you will think hard about which candidate has the best chance to lead our party to victory in November. I hope you will consider the results of the recent primaries and what they tell us about the mindset of voters in the key battleground states. I hope you will think about the broad and winning coalition of voters I have built. And most important, I hope you will think about who is ready to stand on that stage with Senator McCain, fight for the deepest principles of our party, and lead our country forward into this new century.

Update: Here's Hillary Rosen on why Hillary's supporters are sticking with her.

< The GOP Talking Point On FL/MI | Situational Ethics >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Good Luck (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:22:38 PM EST

    Good luck Hill, you are going to need it.  The infatuation with BHO is too strong.

    The infatuation has done a major decline (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:22:24 PM EST
    now, it's just holding on for fear of embarassment for some, and fear of reprisal for others. They don't know how to back away gracefully.


    Parent
    Heads are going to explode over this-- (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:23:09 PM EST
    I guarantee it.
    Hillary is trying to "cheat" by overturning the "will of the pledged delegates".
    Personally I'm all for her lobbying the SD's. I wish her the best of luck. Three months is plenty of time for her to make a case.

    If Their Heads Explode...sobeit....Every (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:23:19 PM EST
    candidate is entitled to lobby the SD's...and the
    SD's can change their minds whenever they have a mind to.  Her letter makes perfect sense and for those SD's paying attention, they know what they must do to pick the most electable candidate.

    Parent
    The self-evident flaw in this impending tantrum (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:42:48 PM EST
    If Sen Clinton is accused of wrongdoing by courting the superdeez, what explanation would TeamObama have for forcefully leaking the (allegedly solid) "fact" these same superdeez were firmly in Obama's pocket?

    The juicy advance news that they would tumble out onto the record in two or three days ... but purely unlobbied and of their own unanticipated volition, of course.

    Parent

    why not wait to see (3.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Tano on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:41:54 PM EST
    what kind of "tantrum" materializes, rather than complaining abuot phantom ones?

    I have no problem with Hillary making her case in this format to the superdels. Obviously I wish she would face reality and get behind our nominee, but so long as she hangs in, then she will be making her case. How is this memo different from anything else she has been doing these last few weeks? Why would it prompt some tantrum?

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 7) (#33)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:43:41 PM EST
    No need to wait.  We all remember the anguished wails from Obama supporters about the injustice of superdelegates deciding the nomination, back when they feared the superdelegates would go for Hillary.  Since then they've decided the superdelegates are actually the best thing since sliced bread.

    Parent
    It just pains me to read (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by vigkat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:50:59 PM EST
    that she should "face reality and get behind our nominee."  We don't have a nominee yet, so there is no "reality" for her to face, other than the fact that she has a tough battle on her hands.

    Parent
    There is no will of pledged delgates (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Salt on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:55:26 PM EST
    they are disparately apportioned and some would say arbitrarily assigned based on faux guidelines they do no represent the will of any body other than the DNC.  

    Parent
    most of the congressional SDs (none / 0) (#38)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:48:27 PM EST
    will have constituencies where she won.
    Certainly the Stea level SDs anyway.


    Parent
    I truly expect the contents of Hillary's (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:45:31 PM EST
    letter to be villified and torn apart by the media. The question will be, does she have valid points, and the answer will be no, he is ahead here, has SD's waiting there, and so on.  

    I like Hilary Rosen, but (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:14:52 PM EST
    doesn't Huffpo have any copy editors?  Yikes!

    gyrfalcon...Hillary Rosen is the Political (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:52:14 PM EST
    Director and Washington Editor at Large for Huffingtonpost.com

    Parent
    I know that (none / 0) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:37:23 PM EST
    But she badly, badly needs a copy editor.  The piece is really cringe-worthy in its egregious style and punctuation errors.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#104)
    by boredmpa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:42:34 PM EST
    it's probably for the best that more people don't know what a fluffer is....

    Parent
    Oh My....lived adjacent to the San Fernando (none / 0) (#108)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:04:28 AM EST
    Valley...welcome to Fluffer World  :)

    Parent
    I see....they need more than a good copy (none / 0) (#109)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:05:35 AM EST
    editor...how about a character editor?

    Parent
    The Rosen piece was defeatist, (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:17:33 PM EST
    and I disagree with several of her points.

    Trying to post (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:55:03 PM EST
    something positive over there is impossible.  She tried too hard to appease the Obama supporters and failed anyway.

    Might as well go for broke and not worry about the whining and protests.

    Parent

    And why, pray tell, (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:54:07 PM EST
    does anyone have to explain whey they still support a candidate?

    I worked on the Gary Hart Campaign in '84, and you may find this shocking but we actually supported our candidate until he conceded.

    And, you know what, no one thought it was odd at all.

    This is another Bizarro World aspect of this campaign.  It's somehow madness, that needs to be defended, to support a candidate who still happens to be running for president.

    Parent

    Will of the Superdelegates? (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Sycamore on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:24:48 PM EST
    Is there such things? Please stop drinking the KoolAid. Pledged and Superdelegates can only vote at the Convention. Short of that their pledges or unpledges are just that, pledges or promises. You probably mean to say WILL OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE VOTED...

    Grrrrrrrr. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:46:33 PM EST
    I just readHillary Rosen's piece.  She doesn't go far enough, but she's trying to calm the atmosphere.  She writes a well-reasoned, sensitive, blameless piece and talks about her loyalty to Clinton.

    And those dimwitted Obama supporters miss the damn point and criticize her anyway.

    It's especially humorous because Obama has really done nothing since February to get more people excited, quite the opposite actually.  

     

    Rosen's article - really, really weak (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by LCaution on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:54:05 PM EST
    She blames Obama and his supporters for nothing, explains that Hillary's campaign has been weak, and gives a very modest defense (almost an apologia) for continuing to support her.

    Like Joan Walsh in Salon about the latest dust-up, and Anna Quindlan in Newsweek a week ago, major women with a public platform seem to bend over backwards to minimize the hostile press, the viciousness of Obama's supporters (both the bloggers and the commentators), the dung being thrown at the Clintons from all sides.

    They seem afraid to distance themselves too far from the Boyz.  (Rosen even starts with a thank you to HuffPost, one of the biggest purveyers of HDS, for the privilege of joining.)

    In short, as a pro-Hillary piece, it's a waste of a link.

    Well Linda Hirshman was booted from TPM (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by catfish on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:13:17 PM EST
    maybe because she didn't toe the line?

    Sexism of women against other women has been most glaring to me. It's OK not to support Hillary, but if it's because she's "campaigning like a man" at least admit you're holding her to a double standard.

    Parent

    Who would want Rosen on your side....as I (none / 0) (#43)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:53:38 PM EST
    noted above, Hillary Rosen is part of Huffington Post.

    Parent
    Maria Cocco has been great (none / 0) (#62)
    by catfish on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:08:43 PM EST
    Not backing down and she said the Internet is part of the media. When you include the Internet, the media has been horrid.

    Parent
    Since I favor Hillary and think she is (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:04:48 PM EST
    by far the superior candidate, I have no problem with her continuing to press her case.


    I didn't like Rosen's piece (5.00 / 8) (#30)
    by kayla on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:10:00 PM EST
    I'm not sticking with Hillary because I'm a woman or because she's a woman or because I've experienced sexism.  That's probably the last reason I'm sticking with her.  I just think she'd make a better nominee and president.  She's a better debater, she's got more experience, she seems level-headed, she's willing to go toe to toe with Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann, it doesn't seem like she lets personal mix with politics, she didn't vote for the Bush/Cheney energy bill, etc...

    How about this? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:01:40 PM EST
    We support her because:

    She's running for president, and we prefer her to her opponent.

    Isn't that all that needs to be said?

    Parent

    Obama will win or lose on his own (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:40:24 PM EST
    Don't try to paint this on the other candidate. She made her choices and ended up here, he made his to win the primary and has most likely cast the die to lose in the GE. It has nothing to do with her.

    Except she is like the mythical Cassandra, trying to warn people who won't listen. So be it.

    Ok then (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:52:27 PM EST
    It looks like Hillary is the stronger GE candidate. If we want to ensure a Democratic victory in November, Obama should withdraw immediately and enthusiastically support her. Or is it all about an Obama victory?

    My analysis is that (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:54:33 PM EST
    there's a pathological problem in selecting optimal leadership.

    The Democrats are, to this native of the UK, a New England regional identity with a few cultural outposts in Califonia.  They don't quite realize this in a conscious way. They merrily choose unsuitable candidates for General elections who either hail from Harvard of are themselves New England pols. The segment of society that decides elections is southern white and male and the party appears to have an allergy for selecting precisily the candidates that would optimally appeal to that decisive demographic.

    LBJ, Carter and Clinton all did OK in that segment.   They appear to be the exception or fluke in the pathology of the Democratic party.

    no white women are the largest single (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Salt on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:04:57 PM EST
    demographic in this electorate, that would be the group the Dem Party CHOOSE to alienate.

    I agree completely, however, IMO Teddy Kennedy has been leading this Party down the same failed path time and time again in a quest to return to Camelot.


    Parent

    Her turnout the old, women and hispanics (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by dotcommodity on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:24:45 PM EST
    Old X 200%
    "Overall, more than 22 million Democratic primary voters were over the age of 45 this year, compared to less than 10 million who voted in the 2004 Democratic primaries."

    Women X 300%
    "Women primary voters rose from 7.56 million in the 2004 Democratic primaries to more
    than 21 million to date in 2008 - from 54% to 58% of the Democratic primary electorate."

    Hispanics X 400%
    "At the same time, Latinos increased from 9% to 12% of the Democratic primary
    electorate, from 1.26 million in 2004 to 4.42 million in 2008."

    Parent

    Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:50:35 PM EST
    does well in the demo i've pointed out.  I'm talking about that sliver of voters who either vote GOP sit it out or swing over to the dems occasionally.

    Parent
    They think 'elitism' is made up (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by catfish on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:21:32 PM EST
    I talked with two of these California types Monday (my relatives who really really mean well.) Elitism, they say, is just a media fabrication. They could not fathom any reason other than racism that working class voters would not like Obama. And the only reason voters support Hillary is because in reality they just like/remember Bill and never needed to look further. Because come on, nobody could like Hillary. Also, they said, working class voters did not consider "the bigger picture" like they did, as in how good Obama would look on the world stage.

    For me: no, no and no. But I've stopped trying to explain; they've already cast their ballots.

    They then the pulled up the tivo to play Keith O's Friday night Countdown as they hadn't seen it yet.  That's when I left.

    Parent

    do you have any hair left? (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:39:19 PM EST
    because I'd have been pulling mine out after this...

    Elitism, they say, is just a media fabrication. They could not fathom any reason other than racism that working class voters would not like Obama

    that's why its so impossible to talk to most Obama supporters -- they are so brained-washed they don't even realize what they are saying

    Parent

    Full confession: these were my parents. (none / 0) (#107)
    by catfish on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:45:07 PM EST
    They're just loveable elitists and cannot help themselves.

    Parent
    Merrily (none / 0) (#71)
    by catfish on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:26:35 PM EST
    perfect adverb.

    "They merrily choose unsuitable candidates for General elections..."

    Parent

    Roll on the New England Parochial mentality! (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:56:01 PM EST
    It's a winner.

    Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:00:36 PM EST
    can you give me the delete power you have for other aspects of my life, I love it.  

    Even suppress would be nice (none / 0) (#60)
    by riddlerandy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:06:29 PM EST
    It's her house (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:14:15 PM EST
    if you feel suppressed build your own.  I like Jeralyn's house.  

    Parent
    Correction (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:03:11 PM EST
    crap is anglo saxon, merde is French.  

    Right (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Nadai on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:21:08 PM EST
    Because if she wasn't saying he couldn't win swing states, why, then, he'd be winning them all.  It's all because the nasty monster lady is saying mean things that he can't win.

    Honestly, do you realize how big of a wimp you make Obama out to be?  If he can't handle people opposing him, he's gone into the wrong business.

    I forgot (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Nadai on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:38:43 PM EST
    [hangs head]  Please forgive me.  I'll never do it again.

    I can haz Kool-Aid now?

    Parent

    It is incredibly important that she (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by nulee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:26:43 PM EST
    has put this out there, clearly, in writing, in her words, staring them in the face.  Aspects of this are out of her hands - and she has laid it out clearly the election will be decided based on whether the SDs go for 1) the popular vote or 2) the pledged delegates or 3) other factors such as electability -- her statement is a bold challenge and I hope the SDs have the bravery she has.  They should embrace her if they want to win.  The blood will be on their hands - not hers - if McCain sails to the WH over such a weak opponent as Obama.

    HRC is up to the task - are the SDs?

    Could Obama write this today? - absolutely not, he could not put together the same case - the data simply are not on his side.

    I agree (none / 0) (#106)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:28:39 PM EST
    This is exactly what she needed to do.  I read it with fascination and it was very well put forward.  It is neither condescending, attacking or demeaning, it just clearly states that she is the stronger candidate for an array of very strong and very valid reasons.  

    If the SD's don't take this into consideration then they have all gone off the deep end.  Unfortunately, I think that may be the case, but regardless, this memo practically forces them to acknowledge her strengths.

    Parent

    There is a fun interactive map (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by kenosharick on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:28:14 PM EST
    at USA Today that all the Superdelegates should play with. Even being generous to Obama, the best scenario was Obama-222, and McCain 316. Being conservative, the worst I could see Hillary doing was, Hillary-317, and McCain 221. That leaves her a "cushion" of 47 EVs. This should be sent to the supers and they could see the stark truth in Red and Blue. The only way to think Obama could win this is to suspend belief in reality.

    got a link? (none / 0) (#93)
    by dotcommodity on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:42:02 PM EST
    can't find it...

    Parent
    It was on their politics page- (none / 0) (#96)
    by kenosharick on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:59:12 PM EST
    sorry, I am totally inept with links and such. They actually had links to it in several spots.

    Parent
    I went back to look- (none / 0) (#97)
    by kenosharick on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:11:28 PM EST
    it is under a really lame story titled "New Swing States pop up in '08" and called "Be A Strategist"  Hope this helps- it is very enlightening.

    Parent
    My DD (none / 0) (#101)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:01:52 PM EST
    has a fun interactive map as well. One for each candidate, Clinton and Obama. They are on either side of the page. You can make it larger and play with the states and see who is going to run better against McCain. It defaults to currtn poll standing, supposedly.

    Parent
    Jeralyn.... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:54:49 PM EST
    Do you know if this is the first time that the Clinton campaign has put together a document like this -- or is it just the first time its being made public?

    Because the argument it makes is pretty devastating -- I especially liked the way she turned the whole "brings voters to the polls" argument on Obama.  The one thing she should have mentioned is that the under 30 cohort -- which she does mention in passing in terms of it being 17% of the electorate in 2000 and 2004 -- has made up only 14.3% of the primary electorate.  The media has been going gaga over Obama's ability to bring in "new young voters", but if he is, its not showing up in the primaries....

    The thought of Hillary debating McCain is great (4.73 / 15) (#4)
    by athyrio on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:24:38 PM EST
    because Obama is a stuttering mess on debates plus his massive lack of knowledge makes him look very foolish (which is why he now refuses to debate Hillary)....I hope the SD's really reflect on all this while pondering their decision...

    Couldn't even answer 'Wanna debate one on one?' (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:46:56 PM EST
    Which pretty much settled the winner, IMO.

    Parent
    Agreed (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by rnibs on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:59:58 PM EST
    She would be fantastic in a debate against McCain.  I would love to see that!

    Parent
    A little OT (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by rnibs on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:21:17 PM EST
    but I loved this letter of hers and ran over to her website and donated.  They're doing a double match thing again.

    Parent
    Is there any suggestion that HIllary and (none / 0) (#9)
    by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:51:39 PM EST
    McCain would debate before August?

    Parent
    McCain may be crazy.... (none / 0) (#102)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:24:55 PM EST
    but he's not that crazy.  

    He's seen what Clinton has done to Obama, and seen how she handled O'Reilly (speaking of which, after seeing that, can you imagine Obama EVER going 1 on 1 with her?)

    Parent

    Whine all you want. (4.42 / 7) (#23)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:48:57 PM EST
    Obama is a weak candidate.  After Bush, he's hardly the person I look to to clean up the mess.

    Since they are (4.20 / 5) (#26)
    by RalphB on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:57:49 PM EST
    essentially tied, perhaps Obama could drop out and support now.  Then we'd win even bigger in November.

    ps:  If he can't win, he can't win.  'Nuff said.


    All the way to Denver!! n/t (4.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Emma on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:23:17 PM EST


    Obama will win (4.00 / 1) (#65)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:15:22 PM EST
    propped up by 24/7 leg humping, swooning media or he will fail on his own.  shhhhh don't anyone tell Obama is doing bad in the polls.

    It's about having someone who is qualified to lead the country.  That isn't Obama.

    ain't gonna happen (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by ccpup on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:12:45 PM EST
    the 24/7 leg ... well, what you said swooning media thing will end the moment -- if that moment happens -- he becomes the Nominee and it's him against McCain.

    Then he becomes the defenseless pinata being effortlessly battered back and forth by a suddenly hostile Media, forever on defense (never a good place for a candidate to be) and constantly crying and whining that they're being "mean" to him.  I can see him now, deflated and confused, wondering "What happened?  I thought they LIKED me?!"  But, no, Barack, they just toyed with the Newcomer like a cat toys with a piece of stupid string.

    And when the dust settles and McCain takes his Oath of Office, Barack joins the ranks of Famous Losers -- we have a whole gallery full of hang-dog portraits of Dem Losers, it seems --, becomes a political pariah (you think these Congresspeople who lose their Districts because of the Big BO are gonna still drink the Kool-Aid?) as well as a laughing-stock.

    'Cause, really, after 8 horrific years of Bush, gas prices through the ceiling and a housing crisis, this should be a damn cake walk for the Dems.  

    Only a neophyte thug supported by power-hungry, arrogant ostriches with their collective heads up their collective a**es could louse it up.

    Oh wait ...

    In the words of Saturday Night Live's Emily Littela, "Never mind"

    Parent

    Of course someone's been paid off.... (3.85 / 7) (#7)
    by mogal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:46:34 PM EST
    who has the money? Oil=pharmaceuticals=weapon/industrial complex.
    foreign investors? GE the owner of MSNBC. The script was brillant and written long ago. Hillary has refused to play her role.

    Rise Hillary.


    If you look at their tax returns (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by brad12345 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:04:06 PM EST
    I believe the Clintons have earned more than $100 million in the past seven years.

    I'm not crazy enough to think anyone bribed anyone else, but if I were, I suppose I'd look to the people with the money.

    Parent

    That's chump change in comparison. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Joan in VA on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:26:51 PM EST
    compared to? (none / 0) (#75)
    by brad12345 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:32:21 PM EST
    What?  Who bribed whom to make more voters turn out for Obama than Clinton? By what process did this happen?  Please explain this theory--because, without any evidence, it makes no sense whatsoever.

    Parent
    Check (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:30:50 PM EST
    donations to super delegates coffers. Obama has donated tons of money to them.

    Parent
    brad12345 TROLL Exposure (none / 0) (#73)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:29:49 PM EST
    brad12345, you are exposing yourself as the Troll with the way you are rating the comments.

    uncledad in on this with you?


    Parent

    Your insinuation is disgusting and baseless. (none / 0) (#82)
    by BrandingIron on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:24:44 PM EST

    But okay, let's look at the money, then:  Who's the one who's given more money to the Super Delegates this primary season?

    Yeeeeah.  Shut up.

    Parent

    She continues to make these points (3.00 / 2) (#39)
    by riddlerandy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:49:18 PM EST
    and she continues to bleed SDs to Obama.  I see no reason to think that they are suddenly going to say ah-ha, and suddenly swarm to her.  In fact, it appears that Obama is set to announce the support of dozens of new SDs after the last primary.    

    then why not seat (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by bjorn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:51:23 PM EST
    MI and Fl NOW

    Parent
    I think you may want to re-check who's (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:24:21 PM EST
    "bleeding" His campaign is having problems plugging them all up. Don't think the SD's are not watching, they are!

    Parent
    And that is why he has picked up (none / 0) (#78)
    by riddlerandy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:39:54 PM EST
    another half dozen SDs in the last week?

    Parent
    That (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:29:35 PM EST
    is more spin from Obama. He's been lying about the supers waiting in the wings for months now. They haven't materialized yet. Feh, the Dems are looking to lose an election in a sure win year. Only we could screw that up.

    Parent
    Hillary Rosen a disgrace who should not be linked (none / 0) (#20)
    by jerry on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:14:11 PM EST
    Hillary Rosen, because of her role in passage of the DMCA, and the abuses she enabled at the RIAA, is a disgrace who should not be linked to.

    The country, our civil liberties, and frankly the world was made a worse off to her advocacy.

    well said (none / 0) (#48)
    by uncledad on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:56:23 PM EST
    I couldn't agree more, some of the posts here are quite bizzare.

    so's you handle unc. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:57:36 PM EST
    State Conventions (none / 0) (#51)
    by BDB on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:59:13 PM EST
    Does anyone know when the pledged delegates will actually be set?  

    I know that most states do this at their state conventions, but until then it seems even the pledged delegate count is an estimate of what the delegates will actually look like.  I presume the candidates will pick up/lose some in these proceedings.

    Of course, I recognize that "pledged" doesn't mean actually committed (since they can switch), but it's weird to be talking about specific pledged delegate leads when what we're really talking about are estimates.  

    i told you so (none / 0) (#61)
    by isaac on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:07:10 PM EST
    in response pres. mccain will be as unsatisfying as  to the 4000

    Obama (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:27:31 PM EST
    is a terrible candidate. What Hillary is saying is obvious to all who pay attention. Pretending that these problems don't exist will give Dems a rude awakening in Nov.

    sure, if you are willing to sit through (none / 0) (#91)
    by dotcommodity on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:37:51 PM EST
    another primaryfull of debates.

    We fine-print voters are carefull and attentive.

    So we will need to inspect the teeth and generally go over their policy plans, assess their stamina in standing up for a real Democratic agenda, assess their ability to fluidly and intelligently discuss and explain their positions...look at grace under fire

    Gore has met my credentialing requirements...this  
    Lieberman....um, we already rejected the "bipartisan" Unity Pony candidate, (we won't need to check another)

    Women now make up 58 % of the electorate... (none / 0) (#94)
    by hummingbirdv on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:46:38 PM EST
    very interesting.  And Hill has been gaining with women in all age groups.

    Rosen's article was 1/3rd sympathetic and 2/3rd's pathetic.  She is loyal?  Don't really get that.
    The overall take was that it's a losing battle and she is so apologetic for sticking with the "other" candidate against the "wiser" boyz club.

    Nice try but didn't even come close to expressing why WE stick with Hill.

    TRY:  Brilliance, Compassion, Courage, Grace, Stength, Energy, Beauty, and HEART.  The lady has so much HEART the people LOVE HER.  WE love her and know she will get our country back on track and start taking care of the huge problems we are facing.

    She is sincere and people get that in their gut.
    Senator Clinton has more VOTES than any primary candidate in history.  The people keep saying NO to BO.  No Dem candidate besides McGovern (and we know how that turned out) succeeded to the nomination without the popular vote.

    It's going to the convention folks.

    Deal with it.

    excellent letter to the SD's et al. (none / 0) (#98)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:29:15 PM EST
    I hope they read it and actually think about it. It's clear to me that Clinton is the better politician (now after a slow start) the better campaigner, media proof (vs. temporary media darling), can win against McCain, and would be by far the better president. In these difficult times, we need Clinton.

    If they don't, and Obama looses in the general, the SD's will pay a political price. This mistake will be monumental mistake in the history of the party if Obama looses given the stakes and where we are today. The SD's will not be able to slither away and hide.

    I think this race is for nothing less than the soul of the Democratic party. Either we will have a new party that excludes the traditional base, never to see it again, or it will be expanded and more powerful. The SD's get to decide which.

    an independent voter from michigan (none / 0) (#111)
    by shadow on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:21:55 PM EST
    The simple fact is that it is not the popular vote that determines the nominee, it's the number of delegates. The superdelegates are free to use whatever criteria they want to decide whom they wish to support. If they want to base their choice on the popular vote or on anything else, that's completely up to them.

    I'm an independent voter from Michigan and I believe both Hillary and Obama would be strong candidates in November and would both make excellent presidents.

    I can speak from personal experience, though, when it comes to the Michigan primary. The basic facts are these. The candidates signed a pledge last year to not participate and to not campaign in Michigan and Florida. Hillary was the only major candidate whose name was on the ballot. She said in an NPR interview in November that "the Michigan primary would not count for anything". None of the candidates campaigned here. When we went to the polls we were told that the democratic primary would be meaningless, that no democratic delegates would be seated and that half the republican delegates would be seated. We were all given the option of taking either a democratic or republican ballot.

    As a result, in no way was our primary a real, democratic election. It was totally flawed. If the candidates had campaigned here and we'd had a real election, the results would have been completely different.

    When Hillary says she wants to count the votes, she's saying that she wants to count the results of a completely flawed, undemocratic election. I'm sorry but this is downright dishonest. It goes against the very core of our democracy - that is, that our elections should be free and fair.

    It would be fundamentally unjust to use the results of our primary in any way.

    Personally, I think the primary system has flaws and should be changed, but I do understand why the DNC told Michigan and Florida they could not move up their primaries. If they allowed them to do so, it would have been total chaos as all 50 states started rescheduling their primaries, earlier and earlier, jockeying for position at the front of the calendar. The fault here lies with the Michigan democratic party for creating this mess.

    However this all turns out, please remember that if you honestly believe that one of the basic foundations of our democracy is that we have free, fair, and open elections, it simply is not possible to count the results of our primary in any way. It would be a mockery of our country's fundamental principles and ideals.

    Best of luck to both candidates - Hillary and Obama - you both represent the best our country has to offer. It is crucial to the future of our country that, whichever one of you is nominated, we have a democratic president in office next January to start undoing the tremendous damage done by the Bush administration.