I have to say that I doubt threatening Nancy Pelosi to take their toys and go home if she doesn't urge superdelegates to do what they want is really the smartest way for Hillary Clinton supporters to try to win this election. It sort of re-enforces the case that the Clintons and their close allies are selfish people willing and ready to destroy the party in order to maintain control over it.
« Operation Ivy | Main | An NC Primary Primer »
Threats
26 Mar 2008 06:38 pm
Comments (101)
Not much to add to what you've said here. These really aren't the type of fat cat jerks the party wants to be beholden to anyway.
Market forces, baby! At least we'll be able to get a sense of the dollar value of the Democratic nomination.
Their argument is also really incoherent. They're angry about Speaker Pelosi urging superdelegates to support the winner of the pledged delegates, and to express why this is out-of-bounds they state that there are still ten states left to vote. Well, sure, but presumably if Pelosi's stance is that supers should bow to the pledged, that's true regardless of how many states remain.
It sort of re-enforces the case that the Clintons and their close allies are selfish people willing and ready to destroy the party in order to maintain control over it.
This seems kind of backwards to me. It seems like Nancy Pelosi is the one who is trying to railroad the result here by saying that the number of pledged delegates is the only thing that superdelegates should consider. The donors, OTOH, are saying that superdelegates should be permitted to consider any factors they wish, and not be railroaded into aping the pledged delegate results.
The Clintons don't have control over the party--they never have--they only have control over the machine within the party they've built over the years.
If anyone is interested in making a point about the way small donors help the party resist intimidation, here's the relevant page:
https://dccc.org/page/contribute
I would have contributed later, but I'll do it now.
This seems kind of backwards to me.
And if you weren't a Republican, maybe we'd give a fuck.
Al, if that's their point, then why bring up the 10 states that haven't voted yet? Pelosi didn't say the superdelegates should go with Obama, but with the person who ends up ahead in delegates.
Obama's broader donor base is also a threat to them. The number of Democratic donors has often been rather narrow. They have to kill internet activism and small donor candidates in the crib in order to maintain their power over the party.
jbryan,
I don't see how you can fail to grasp such a simple argument.
What they're saying is, how dare Pelosi suggest that superdelegates should ultimately go with the winner of the election process-that just wouldn't be fair to the voters!!!
Seems like every day now the Clinton campaign is only engaged in either talking shit about Obama or coming up with some new delegate counting plan.
Where's the beef?
Seems like every day now the Clinton campaign is only engaged in either talking shit about Obama or coming up with some new delegate counting plan.
Where's the beef?
Also, the repeated threatening of riots from Doug Wilder and other Obama supporters are far far more damaging and divisive to the party overall than any possible money threat anyone could make.
This argument has gotten pretty silly. Nobody denies of course that the superdelegates can vote for whoever they want. All Pelosi has done is give her opinion on what factors or factor superdelegates should make their decision based on. How is that any less legitimate than saying that superdelegates should vote for Clinton because she is more electable in their view. Basically these are both arguments about what is best for the party. Why is one of them supposed to be out of bounds?
Also, the repeated threatening of riots from Doug Wilder and other Obama supporters
snark?
I think all these fine upstanding patriots should fund a campaign for public financing, 'cause I'm sure their real interest is small-d democracy, not advancing the cause of plutocrats everywhere.
this is the second time that Sen. Clinton's $upporters have threatened the Dem Party with tightening their purse strings if their candidate doesn't win.
it happened regarding Florida and i was like, "eh, really? is that how you want to play?"
but now it's looking like a pattern; a pattern of threatening to hold the Dem Party financially hostage.
it's myopic and, plainly, sucks.
BTW, where exactly is this threat "to take their toys and go home"?
I read the letter, and didn't see any threat. I saw them saying that Pelosi should listen to them because they are donors. But that's hardly the same as saying that they'll stop being donors if she doesn't heed their wishes.
This directly reflects the information here: http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/finances/index.html
(Click Clinton, then the Details tab, and look at Size of Donations; then compare to Obama; then compare to Guiliani)
Basically, a significantly larger portion of Hillary's financial support comes from big monied persons than is the case for Obama. Fortunately, this means she's in her death throes: she doesn't have very many people to continue to draw money from, as they've already maxxed out. Obama can still hit up the small donations.
And if you weren't a Republican, maybe we'd give a fuck
Nobody's asking you to give a f*ck, SCMT. I'm just throwing my 2 cents out there like everyone else. I mean, sure, I think my thoughts are interesting - in this case especially since I am not a supporter of either one of them (unlike, say, everyone else who posts on the thread) - but please feel free to scroll right on by my comments.
Hillary and Bill now have their big donors thugs threaten the DNC "demanding" their money back.
Obama'a supporters would happily replace the Clinton donor money for the DNC. One email from Obama could raise the DNC $1,000,000… and another, and another. His donor list would also raise millions for close Congressional elections where the Dems could pick up many new seats.
It’s not just electability that compels an immediate Hillary withdrawal, but also major cash for the Democrats coffers. The Superdelegates and Democratic professionals should understand that Obama’s coattails includes major cash for their elections.
It is well past to move beyond the Clinton/Bush legacy. It is time for the party leaders to insist that Hillary end her failed endeavor.
Matthew:
You'd have more of a leg to stand on if it wasn't universally accepted (and apparently, seen as acceptable) that black Obama supporters will react much the same way if things don't go his way.
Al:It seems like Nancy Pelosi is the one who is trying to railroad the result here by saying that the number of pledged delegates is the only thing that superdelegates should consider.
Wrong. What she said was "If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party."
Then when she was asked: "But what if one candidate has won the popular vote and the other candidate has won the delegates?"
She said: "But it's a delegate race...The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."
Debate the last point if you want, but in general, I see it as she's trying to prevent voters from being railroaded by the superdelegates.
What they're saying is, how dare Pelosi suggest that superdelegates should ultimately go with the winner of the election process-that just wouldn't be fair to the voters!
No, what they're saying is, how dare Pelosi suggest that superdelegates should automatically go with the pledged delegate leader. They're simply trying to prevent a superdelegate stampede to Obama that would render Pennsylvannia (and everything beyond) a largely moot point.
Although I generally agree with the consensus that Clinton's nomination chances are minuscule, when I look at the math, I actually think her chances look better. According to the numbers quoted in the story, if you add Obama and Clinton's pledged delegate totals, you find that his advantage over her is 53 to 47. Fifty-three to freakin' forty-seven. No, she won't pass him, but it's entirely possible she could get make it, say, 51 to 49, right? That's pretty close. So close, in fact, one could argue the difference is statistically insignificant. A delegate split that tight would necessitate a very weak finish by Obama. I'm not saying it's likely, but should it occur (and we've seen enough momentum shifts already to know it's hardly impossible, especially given the more Hillary-friendly contests coming up), it would obviously raise a lot of questions about Obama's general strength as a candidate. Sure, he's done a bang up job against a once-upon-a-time prohibitive establishment candidate. But that bang up job looks likely to get him, oh, about half of the available pledged delegates when all is said and done. The fact is Obama is wildly popular with half of the people who have voted in Democratic primaries, and arguably disliked by the other half. This is hardly a reaganesque, sweeping-all-before-him, triumphant ascension to the nomination we're witnessing here. Obama in many ways is a weak candidate. Y'all just happen to find yourselves in the half of the party that adores him, and so you can't see that.
Hillary's largely in the same boat, of course. So I say we split the difference, nominate Al Gore on the second ballot, and put Obama in as VP.
But that's hardly the same as saying that they'll stop being donors if she doesn't heed their wishes.
Wow, I'm... amazed. Pelosi's saying the pledged delegates represent the voters, and they should be heard. These donors are saying, essentially, that they're more equal than us regular folks, to borrow a phrase from Orwell. How is that not a back-handed threat?
Anyway, fuck these guys. Let's see them put up or shut up. If they're not interested in progressive politics, then they're just a corrupting influence, which is exactly what Obama has been railing against all along. All they've done is lay another coat of "Establishment Candidate" colored paint on their favorite girl. Real smart.
AKBY> "But it's a delegate race...The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."
The only universe in which that objectionmakes sense is one in which a superdelegate isn't a delegate.
The entire point of having superdelegates is for them to exercise their judgment. And if they do, then quite literally the delegates will choose the nominee.
All of them.
Telling the superdelegates NOT to exercise their judgment *is* interference, however you slice it.
Also, shouldn't these cretins know better than anyone that when you try to publicly upstage someone's power that you'll rarely get something other than a resoundingly negative reaction?
I'm just throwing my 2 cents out there like everyone else.
Fair point.
in this case especially since I am not a supporter of either one of them (unlike, say, everyone else who posts on the thread)
A supporter of a bloody Dem primary, OTOH....
What she said was "If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party."
And if a superdelegate thought it would be more harmful if the party were to nominate the candidate the superdelegate thinks is the worse of the two?
We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.
Sentence by sentence:
We cut the real checks.
We are telling you what to do: wait until the week before Labor Day to choose a candidate with a more expansive (yet valid within the rules) definition of "pledged" delegates.
We like you, so do what we, the people who cut the real checks, are telling you do.
There is no "or else!" statement, so there is no threat. Only demands.
I think waiting until then is a bad idea, but all I can do besides also writing letters is state that come mid to late June, there are three subgroups of unpledged delegates:
Super-delegates for Hillary Clinton,
Super-delegates for Barack Obama, and
Super-delegates for John McCain.
If a Democratic unpledged delegate can't make up your mind by Independence Day, I have to assume you want to ignore John McCain for two whole months.
A supporter of a bloody Dem primary, OTOH....
Er, likewise a fair point, I suppose.
Dear Clintonian Plutocrat Financiers,
You lost. We have more donors than you. We have more money than you. Kindly take take your checkbook and shove it up your ass.
Sincerely,
David Plouffe
P.S. Say, "David, I am your bitch."
> We cut the real checks.
> We are telling you what to do: wait until the week before Labor Day to choose a candidate with a more expansive (yet valid within the rules) definition of "pledged" delegates.
> We like you, so do what we, the people who cut the real checks, are telling you do.
A more fair interpretation might be:
Get your thumb off the dang scale, lady.
And if a superdelegate thought it would be more harmful if the party were to nominate the candidate the superdelegate thinks is the worse of the two?
The point is Al, what one superdelegate "thinks" shouldn't override what the nation "thinks."
This tactic smacks of the Terry McAuliffe comments about Richardson possibly endorsing Obama, as well as Carville's "Judas" comments. Such attempted arm twisting is both appalling and unlikely to be effective. Obama"s already demonstrated he can raise money without this circle of donors, thank you very much, and I think Pelosi and other superdelegates are only going to be offended by this attempt to buly them.
This tactic smacks of the Terry McAuliffe comments about Richardson possibly endorsing Obama, as well as Carville's "Judas" comments. Such attempted arm twisting is both appalling and unlikely to be effective. Obama"s already demonstrated he can raise money without this circle of donors, thank you very much, and I think Pelosi and other superdelegates are only going to be offended by this attempt to buly them.
This tactic smacks of the Terry McAuliffe comments about Richardson possibly endorsing Obama, as well as Carville's "Judas" comments. Such attempted arm twisting is both appalling and unlikely to be effective. Obama"s already demonstrated he can raise money without this circle of donors, thank you very much, and I think Pelosi and other superdelegates are only going to be offended by this attempt to buly them.
This tactic smacks of the Terry McAuliffe comments about Richardson possibly endorsing Obama, as well as Carville's "Judas" comments. Such attempted arm twisting is both appalling and unlikely to be effective. Obama"s already demonstrated he can raise money without this circle of donors, thank you very much, and I think Pelosi and other superdelegates are only going to be offended by this attempt to bully them.
"No, what they're saying is, how dare Pelosi suggest that superdelegates should automatically go with the pledged delegate leader. They're simply trying to prevent a superdelegate stampede to Obama that would render Pennsylvannia (and everything beyond) a largely moot point."
It's not Obama's fault that he happens to have a large enough lead that it is unlikely Clinton will be able to overcome it in Pennsylvania and the rest.
And as to prejudging the outcome, if I recall correctly, it was Hillary Clinton who lined up 100 superdelegates before a single vote was cast, and famously predicted on national television that the race would be over on February 5th. It's actually kind of strange that she didn't show the same deep concern for the voters of Pennsylvania back then.
The point is Al, what one superdelegate "thinks" shouldn't override what the nation "thinks."
If that were true, then you wouldn't have unpledged superdelegates in the first place.
"You'd have more of a leg to stand on if it wasn't universally accepted (and apparently, seen as acceptable) that black Obama supporters will react much the same way if things don't go his way."
It's more acceptable for blacks to make the same threat because their candidate will have won the most pledged delegates and will have the nomination taken from him based on party elites deciding that Obama is just too black to be the party's nominee.
Now if Hillary wins more delegates, yes, black people might be in the same position as Hillary supporters are in now. Until then, the two groups aren't in the same position.
This is all we are sure of: neither candidate will meet the delegate threshold on pledged delegates alone, but Obama is ahead and will remain ahead--all that's left is the counting. If that scenario changes, we can revisit, but why spend so much time considering things that won't happen? Maybe I'll win the lottery, but it's unlikely to happen, especially since I don't play the lottery, so I shouldn't spend lots of time seriously thinking about what I'd do if I won the lottery, right?
So the above conditions are applicable. Therefore, superdelegates will be necessary for one candidate to get to the threshold. Obama, being ahead, needs fewer superdelegates. At this point, the Clinton is making unlikely arguments like "theoretically, more superdelegates could support me even though my opponent won more pledged delegates" or "theoretically, pledged delegates could choose to stop supporting Obama and support me instead". These things are possible, but extremely improbable, which is why everyone is getting irritated with her. Incidentally, those arguments would be equally silly if the tables were reversed, except I think we all know that Obama would have either conceded by now or there would be an enormous drumbeat telling him to concede or be responsible for tearing the party apart. The race is close, but one candidate is clearly ahead. The Clintons' argument all rest on convincing people that the race is tied, essentially tied, or that Clinton leads in some meaningful way, all of which are not true. Obama doesn't have a very big lead in historic terms, but it's big enough that it won't get overturned in any plausibly foreseeable way.
So, this is partly why I think we have to wait for the end of voting, or at least to make sure Obama gets his wins in North Carolina and Indiana before things come to a close (unless he wins Pennsylvania). And yes, it would have ended if he could have won Texas and Ohio. I don't actually think that the Clintons would keep going if Obama won states he wasn't "supposed" to win--or at least if they tried, nobody would give them the time of day. But even though Obama's ahead and will remain ahead, he hasn't quite passed the psychological barrier that will allow the rest of the party to throw themselves his way.
This means we'll have to go through a few more states--maybe even all the rest of them. But then there will be nothing left for the superdelegates to wait for--no more tealeaves to read. And then Pelosi, Reid, Dean and others, I'm pretty sure, will corrall the people who need to be corralled. The fact that it's Hillary Clinton who's lost will be hard for a lot of people who either like or fear them, but they just need to get out of that mindset. Obama's fundraising prowess, and Dean's non-Clinton-dependent leadership should help. Also, the Clintons didn't really do themselves many favors in not aiding others in the party in the past--I'd say the loyalty is more fear than love in many cases, and fear can be overcome.
The Democratic party needs to teach the Clintons that the party is above the Clintons.
If the Clintons had even a sense of dignity, they would realize that they owe everything they are and have to the Democratic party. The Clintons have used the party to secure various elected offices, and then to use that to create a vast personal fortune. None of that happens without the Democratic party.
Remember also, that the Democratic party spent a whole lot of political capital defending the Clintons against scandals, esp. the Lewinsky scandal, that were of the Clintons' own creation and that needn't have happened.
Bill Clinton didn't have to fool around with Lewinsky, and then didn't have to lie about it to the American public as well as a grand jury. But because of his carelessness the party was caught up defending him, rather than pushing through needed initiatives.
So the Clintons owe the party big time, and they need to be put in their place.
It's not Obama's fault that he happens to have a large enough lead that it is unlikely Clinton will be able to overcome it in Pennsylvania and the rest.
And it's not Clinton's fault that a lead in pledged delegates doesn't get you diddly.
Well, I'm confused. Weren't the Clinton's complaining that Richardson's pledge went against the popular vote of his state?
I'm seeing a quantum cake here that's been simultaneously had and eaten.
If that were true, then you wouldn't have unpledged superdelegates in the first place.
Al, I'm not debating the technical aspects of the role of superdelegates, or unpledged PLEO delegates as they are called. But since you're forcing my hand...
Dems decided to change the rules and institute "unpledged PLEOs" to counterbalance the power the McGovern-Fraser Commission drained from party leaders. But the rule was never intended to overturn the delegate and popular vote in a close race, and in fact, it never has. Superdelegates have always rallied behind the candidate who has been ahead in delegates and popular vote. Why?
Because to do so would be un-democratic and would divide the party. So it's about party politics, Al, but not at the expense of democracy.
I'm not a Dem, but even I can see that...
Didn't Obama win NM?
/lazy
They're simply trying to prevent a superdelegate stampede to Obama that would render Pennsylvannia (and everything beyond) a largely moot point. --Jasper
But they're saying
a) Don't endorse now--let all the states vote.
b) Then overturn the result of the votes.
If they don't give a damn how the states actually vote, then their point about letting them vote is moot.
And since Clinton received almost 100 supers before a single vote was cast in Iowa, arguing that endorsing before all the votes are in would be premature is pretty silly. Especially when you admit that you then need everyone who waited for the votes, to ignore those votes, whatever they are.
Weren't the Clinton's complaining that Richardson's pledge went against the popular vote of his state?
No, they were pointing out the hypocrisy of a candidate who threatened superdelegates who didn't vote their district.
And it's not Clinton's fault that a lead in pledged delegates doesn't get you diddly.
It does in the eyes of Sen. Maria Cantwell (a Clinton supporter). And it does in the eyes of Gov. Phil Bredesen and Rep. Zoe Lofgren and Speaker Pelosi and a whole lot of other superdelegates.
No, they were pointing out the hypocrisy of a candidate who threatened superdelegates who didn't vote their district.
No one was threatened. (Except by the dreaded "primary challenge" from within an angry district. Base ingratitude of the electorate, voting for other people.) Once Clinton made it clear that she knew she wouldn't win on any normal measure*, but wanted the supers to hand it to her, the Obama camp said that would be a bad idea. And so did others. Whether it's by match-your-state, or a more generic match of supers to the popular winner, or even of supers simply not overthrowing the vote from elections and being roughly evenly split, doesn't matter much.
This tactic smacks of the Terry McAuliffe comments about Richardson possibly endorsing Obama, as well as Carville's "Judas" comments.
It's very like watching a mafia movie this week. One pictures the letter delivered with a horsehead.
*I recall this as Feb 14, Nagourney's article in the Times. Did they explicitly state it earlier?
When The Onion becomes real-life:
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080326/BUSINESS/803260323
I see Ken Pollack's patron Haim Saban is one of the signers.
I'm a cynical bastard who pretty much hates the world, but this video almost brought me to tears:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gGBKnR
A big "Fuck you" to everyone who calls his supporters naive, or star-struck, or his message "empty" or tries to deride the change he's already caused. People of all races and ages cleaning up their community because they felt inspired by a man.
God bless you, Barack Obama (and I'm an atheist!).
Re "I see Ken Pollack's patron Haim Saban is one of the signers."
-----------
Yep. I'm busy at the moment -- has anyone tried Googling each of those names with "AND Israel" attached?
Nobody's asking you to give a f*ck, SCMT. I'm just throwing my 2 cents out there like everyone else. I mean, sure, I think my thoughts are interesting - in this case especially since I am not a supporter of either one of them (unlike, say, everyone else who posts on the thread) - but please feel free to scroll right on by my comments.
Al, you prolly think yer farts smell good too.
Hint.
FYI - Obama was fairly dependent on large donors for most of 2007. Even with the big increase in number of donors from Q1 to Q4 nearly 60% of his 2007 money was from large donors. Maybe not the pissy group of Clinton moneybags but many of his bundlers are from the same millieu.
Hopefully by 2016, internet fundraising will have matured to a point where a candidate doesn't need fundraisers and bundlers to compete in the money primary (or better yet we will have public financing).
I can't believe that Obama and Clinton have spent almost 300M so far.
From before Obama was an internet leviathan when he had to rely on these people too.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/obama_now_has_300plus_bundlers.html
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/04/sweet_column_obama_touts_small.html
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html
http://nymag.com/news/politics/30634/index3.html
(this piece has Trippi predicting the contest going to the convention and it ran in April 2007)
The authors of the Letter would benefit enormously from a basic course in Logic, surely offered at their local community college(s).
Tearful
Obama supporters are not naive. They know perfectly well that the O-man will not require them to subsidize poor people's healthcare.
I onecorps, er wonder where someone would get the great idea to combine online organizing with offline community activism.
Pelosi should endorse whoever she wants, the big money donors should contribute to whoever they want and Matt, Josh Marshall and their Obamabots should quit the neverending whining. Just my humble opinion.
Pelosi should endorse whoever she wants, the big money donors should contribute to whoever they want and Matt, Josh Marshall and their Obamabots should quit the neverending whining. Just my humble opinion.
You can choose not to see the "neverending whining" anytime. Vote with your mouse, right?
I guess you're a glutton - as long as we're offering humble opinions.
Pelosi should endorse whoever she wants, the big money donors should contribute to whoever they want and Matt, Josh Marshall and their Obamabots should quit the neverending whining. Just my humble opinion.
I don't necessarily disagree with the principle of adhering to the technical definition of what a superdelegate "can" do, but I think they need to seriously consider what they "should" do, at least for the sake of a fair election process.
By the way, I'm not saying you should vote with your mouse.
But at this point, very few people are going to change their mind about their candidate, or stop their "whining," so you should probably settle in.
Mike & Don Williams:
Don't forget Michael O'Hanlon.
News bulletin: The Deomocratic party is being infiltrated by an intruder. And ... oh my gosh...the intruder answers to the people, the many; not a few rich folks.
Now we know what his primary is all about. These folks who are enabling Clinton don't want to lose their money power.
News bulletin: The Deomocratic party is being infiltrated by an intruder. And ... oh my gosh...the intruder answers to the people, the many; not a few rich folks.
Now we know what his primary is all about. These folks who are enabling Clinton don't want to lose their money power.
Obama needs to hit 1623 total pledged delegates to guarantee that he'll have more total p. delegates than Clinton. According to his campaign (and they've tended to be pretty on point with this stuff thus far), he has 1418 right now. DemConWatch has similar numbers from the AP, though they're holding back on delegates from a few states that haven't officially filed (like TX w/ the caucuses).
Still, that leaves him between 205 and 217 p. delegates away from securing a majority. Between now and May 6, we have PA, GM, NC, and IN, for 349 p. delegates, meaning chances are he won't hit a majority even by then, unfortunately...those are wins between 58-62%. Which means we're gonna have to go further into this, maybe until Oregon. Which is, to say the least, annoying. I've said this multiple times, and I'll say it again: I don't mind Clinton staying in all the way until the convention, so long as she's not trying to execute a political hit job. All the evidence suggests that she is trying to execute a political hit job. Waiting around for 2 months, until freakin Oregon, just to be 100% that Obama really is gonna win the pledged delegate count, rather than just 99% sure, seems to be incredibly stupid to me. I mean, apologies to the voters in IN and NC and such, but really, as much as you'd like to matter in the campaign, is it really worth damaging the nominee? Really?
The best chance for this to end soon is if the CW becomes "Clinton has no chance unless you successfully pulls off character assassination". This has to be known as true by everyone in the media and the voting public, so that most of her support abandons her.
We're already starting to see some of that in the media, but it needs to be echoed by party leaders. And we're seeing some of that too (Richardson chiding her for her tone, anonymous DNCers referncing Tonya Harding, etc). But it needs to be a steady drum beat
Especially since Dean and Obama have demonstrated that there is a different revenue model available. One that doesn't empower people like the guy who funded the Saban branch of Brookings. The neo-con branch.
HRC has sucessfully created a debate where one did not exist previously.
Several months ago, it seemed totally unreasonable to consider the superdelegates overturning the delegate/popular-vote count, and out-of-the-question to seat Florida and Michigan.
Adhering to these viewpoints is now considered "taking a side."
I'm not sure this is an "opinion" in the same way changing the rules midstream is, or encouraging an unprecedented application of the superdelegates is.
You miss the point, Matt. The Clintons and their backers have given up on trying to win THIS election -- they recognize that it's almost impossible for her to get enough delegates to win the Democratic nomination (although, of course, they'd be happy if that happened as a very-long-shot result of their efforts). Their main purpose is just to deliberately wreck Obama's chances of beating McCain, so that Hillary can run again in 2012 instead of 2016.
AKBY is 100% correct throughout this thread. To reiterate:
1. Superdelegates are free to exercise their best judgment when deciding who to endorse.
2. One factor that they can and should consider when exercising that judgment is the effect a brokered convention would have on the party and the nation.
3. The fact that #2 is controversial is a testament to how far the Clinton camp has managed to drag the goalposts over the last two months.
"The Clintons have used the party to secure various elected offices, and then to use that to create a vast personal fortune. None of that happens without the Democratic party."
Roger that: http://theseedsof9-11.com
I think AKBY is 100% correct about FL and MI. The notion that those elections might retrospectively count required a good bit of goalpost-dragging.
I'm not so sure about the superdelegates. I think Leo's factor #2 seems more obvious in this election cycle than it has in several previous cycles. I.e., for historians, this might be a "crisis of rising standards."
Any Democrat - and there are many - who believe that Obama is unelectable has no choice but to take the nomination battle to the convention.
I agree the superdelegates need to exercise considerable judgment in deciding the race. No single factor like the pledged delegate or electoral vote count should be decisive.
By the way, I'm not saying you should vote with your mouse.
Appreciate that. I spent the day defending Obama to my Hillary-fanatic mother and sister who are visiting from South Carolina. Not that South Carolina is in play but just on general principle.
All hands are going to be needed on deck in November. Big picture.
The entire point of having superdelegates is for them to exercise their judgment. And if they do, then quite literally the delegates will choose the nominee.
No, this was not the "entire" point to having superdelegates; there were several reasons, and the one thing all these reasons had in common, was they were all thought to be GOOD FOR THE PARTY.
By instituting superdelegates the party would avoid a messy brokered convention. If a "crisis" happened at the convention, it was thought that the superdelegates could act as "mediators" to settle things in an organized manner, to protect the party.
Also this rule was adopted after the effect of McGovern-Fraser Commission greatly diminished party officials' participation in the nominating process. They wanted party leaders, who yielded a lot of influence with voters, to be more involved in the nominating process in order to give Dem nominees a boost for the upcoming general election.
There's more, but the point is the DNC is interested in doing what's good for the party. They never intended to "use" the literal interpretation of the "unpledged" nature of the superdelegate votes to overturn the primary cycle election results. To do so would be BAD FOR THE PARTY.
It's all about party politics.
Business Week nails it, IMO, on what would happen if the supers turned over the will of the voters:
tbone: unless you are "tripletee" over at the unfunny Daily Kos site, your "The War Journals of Hillary Clinton, Vol. 1" has been copied and pasted and is now on the front page.
My first reaction to this story was very different than the other posts I've read. My first thought was it seems a very bad idea to 'front the Speaker of the House of Representatives IN PUBLIC. She's remained "neutral" as a formal stance so far, but don't you think she is pretty good at finding uncommitted superdelegates known as Congressmen and knowing ways to be persuasive to her point of view? Doesn't the Speaker have just a smidge of influence over some of those "alternate delegates"? I might tell her something like that at a nice private lunch somewhere overlooking her beloved Bay, but in a press release? I think not. What IS the Clinton campaign thinking? Do they really think it's wise to muscle the Speaker? I can't imagine that Nancy is thinking: Oooooh. Better not piss off Hillary or there will be trouble. Rather, I'm thinking Ms. Pelosi is plotting a striking revenge for the affront. I think this is the dumbest move since not planning for February for the Clinton campaign.
Yay for tbone!
"Superdelegates are supposed to take all that information on board and supposed to be exercising the judgment that people would have exercised if this information and challenges had been available several months ago." - Hillary Clinton
Umm, wow. No wonder she wouldn't shut up about being 007 in Tuzla. She thinks we're all fucking morons. Vote for me, you don't know any better! Even if you didn't vote for me, you would have voted for me if you knew better! Me me me! Heads I win, tails you lose.
Something I have wondered...Sullivan keeps mentioning HRC's 2012 strategy. Suppose BHO wins in November. You think she would have the gall to challenge him, a la Kennedy in 1980? You think she would run in 2016?
Matt,
You are a hypocrite! You have the audacity to describe the wealthy backers of Hillary as threatening Pelosi, and at the same time, mounting a campaign against her to drop out. The real intimidation is coming from the fawning Obama media, Richardson, Kerry, and the Obama supporters.
This is hard for you to believe, Obama is not qualified to be President. Why don't you leave your Ivory Tower and tour America, Iraq, and Afghanistan to discover why they are voting for Hillary? Obama's inexperience scares many voters.
laocoon@12:42,
Great point. What the heck could they possibly be thinking? She's 3rd in line to the presidency. She's madam speaker. Hillary Clinton is about to lose to a first term senator and the Speaker is supposed to be scared by her fundraisers?
The way she has been running her campaign has reinforced my conviction that she would be a terrible, terrible president.
Let's see:
She can never admit a mistake. Only recently did she admit that the Iraq war vote was a mistake. Only with video evidence did she concede that she "misspoke" for the first time in 12 years. She attributed it to sleep deprivation,yet she argues that she is the person to answer that 3 AM phone call and she still had the gumption to say that she and McCain had passed the Commander-in-Chief threshold while the guy who happened to be right on Iraq needed more seasoning, although, he could pass that threshold this summer because that would be necessary for a Clinton/Obama ticket because the Veep needs to be just as prepared as the president.
Oh, and this embellishment of all her experience. What a bunch of BS. Why can't she just say that she was his closest adviser. Why does she have to claim that her role was so much greater then the contemporaneous documentary evidence clearly shows. And then when caught, she continued to lie. These aren't even important things. Some of her stuff doesn't even pass the sniff test. That she was the one they sent in when it was too dangerous?
I cannot wait til she drops out . . . I hope she doesn't reveal herself to be a crab person.
Crab People, Crab People, Crab People.
nattyb, when did she admit Iraq was a mistake? It's been my understanding that she refuses to do so.
Holy shit, I didn't know Bill had called Obama a sexist:
"Clinton added that the recent rough tone of the campaign didn’t trouble him. "I don't give a riff about all this name-calling that's going on. They've been going on ever since Iowa. I've heard them say all these things about her," he said. "Apparently it's okay to say bad things about a girl.""
What a piece of shit. Because exposing your wife as a giant fucking liar makes you a sexist.
And like Bill Clinton has any business standing up for women's rights.
Obama's surrogates are getting so shrill about the necessity of Hillary's getting out of the race now that I wonder whether it represents a preview of arguments in the coming Democratic civil war.
Obama has been badly hurt by Pastor Wright, and his surrogates see that it may not be on for November.
If it ends badly, their having denied the nomination to a woman who would probably win, we will be told that it was all the fault of Clinton for prolonging the race beyond April, that she fatally weakened Obama by her persistence and negativity.
If Obama's surrogates were really confident about the prospects of their candidate, they would just let the campaign play out without complaint.
If Obama's surrogates were really confident about the prospects of their candidate, they would just let the campaign play out without complaint.
What everyone is becoming confident about are those old bits of conventional wisdom like "The Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity," or "The Democrats can always find a way to pull defeat from the jaws of victory." So when the Clinton supporters commence dark muttering about "a candidate who gets good press--unnatural" and "who wants to attract independents and cross-over voters?" and "it's not fair because Hillary wasn't warmed up until March," and they have a mechanism in place to overturn voters, and the mechanism dithers....yes, we do become a bit concerned.
If Obama is as unelectable as Clinton's supporters now like to claim, she has no problems. She'll sweep the following contests 3-1 and go into the convention not just tied but with a comfortable lead.
Hillary's 911 Fabrication
Writers, Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, disclose an even more outrageous Fabrication Hillary' has told the American public that has not been disclosed, until now. Here is an excerpt: "After Sept. 11, Hillary had a problem. New Yorkers were desperately focused on their own need for protection and they were saddled with a senator who was not one of them — an Arkansan, or was it a Chicagoan? Interviewed on the “Today Show” one week after Sept. 11, she spun an elaborate yarn. The kindest thing we could say was that it was a fantasy. Or a fabrication.
She said that Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 and happened to duck into a coffee shop when the airplanes hit. She said that this move saved Chelsea’s life. But Chelsea told Talk magazine that she was in a friend’s apartment four miles from ground zero when the first plane hit. Her friend called her, waking her up, and told her to turn on the TV. On television, she saw the second plane hit, disproving Hillary’s claim that “she heard the plane hit. She heard it. She did.”
So why did Hillary make up the story about Chelsea? Most likely to was because her co-senator (and implicit rival for the voters’ affection), a real New Yorker, Charles Schumer (D), spoke of his daughter, who attended Stuyvesant High School, located next to the Trade Center, being at real risk on Sept. 11. Hillary needed to make herself part of the scene.
She invented the entire story on national television, the “Today Show,” and didn’t blink an eye. Her fabrication on the “Today Show” was no unique foray. It is her standard M.O. It gives us pause in evaluating all of her stories and calls into question her entire credibility. " (From the Hill Blog, Mar. 27, 08)
It seems Hillary will do anything to win. This week, Hillary, a consumate Actress & Mistress of Spin, (=s Phony) sat down with her arch enemey, Richard Mellon Scaife the Pittsburgh Gazette, the very one who during her White House years accused her of the murder of Vince Foster and said that Bill and she had committed 60 murders to hide their crimes, in an ill-advised and ill-timed manner to re-introduce the Rev. Wright issue -- by the way, the very Rev. Wright that they Invited to the White House. Then they sent out Sen. McGovern to re-introduce the Gender Fight, so now we have a racial and gender fight to instigate more division while trying to Divert attention from her Big Gaf, the Bosnia Tale of Sniper Fire, which we all know now is a complete Fabrication told THREE times, which is a betrayal of the public trust and goes right to the Heart of character. They somtimes even Stage their audiences. They have been telling these Tall Tales for years and this time got caught. However, the American People do Demand that thier Politicians be trustworthy and truthful! And, if it was not for Rush Limbaugh, and Bill's visit to Rush during the Texas Primarys, Barack would have won Texas but for the 100,000 Republican votes casted for Hillary which put her slightly over the top. However, the Republicans who vote for Barack, genuinely like him unlike the Republicans who vote for Hillary, as a way to "bloody" Barack up, as stated by Rush Limbaugh! As for her Tonya Harding, Tonya was sent packing in disgrace! As for Hillary's scheme to make Barack look "unelectable", I say "Chickens Coming Home to Roost"! I say No More "Do and Say Anything" Politicians!
It's not just the media, Hillary supporters. The superdelegates are getting anxious about Hillary's tactics as well. It is also, of course, hurting her in the polls more than it is Obama. Her campaign has turned wildly off key again and is now lashing out at the entire Democratic party as if they owe her a favor.
Nancy Pelosi owes Hillary Clinton no favors. She's been in her seat for what, twenty years? Well before Hillary or Obama. If Hillary really wants to go toe-to-toe with Nancy, she's welcome to. That would take a lot of backbone.
I wish she showed that kind of backbone when dealing with Richard Mellon Scaife.
It's not just the media, Hillary supporters. The superdelegates are getting anxious about Hillary's tactics as well. It is also, of course, hurting her in the polls more than it is Obama. Her campaign has turned wildly off key again and is now lashing out at the entire Democratic party as if they owe her a favor.
Nancy Pelosi owes Hillary Clinton no favors. She's been in her seat for what, twenty years? Well before Hillary or Obama. If Hillary really wants to go toe-to-toe with Nancy, she's welcome to. That would take a lot of backbone.
I wish she showed that kind of backbone when dealing with Richard Mellon Scaife.
Oh, here's the link to the article noting superdelegates are wary of Hillary's latest incarnation:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/820834.aspx
Here is the problem: Hillary cannot figure out a way to attack her opponents without gettting mud on herself. Now, maybe that's the media treating her rough, but she's had FIFTEEN YEARS to learn how to manipulate the media as well as her husband and what does she do? She has a little chat about Obama's pastor with a right-wind douchebag "media baron". She has no natural political skills and our party does not have time to teach them to her.
Like it or not, controlling the media is a political skill. Obama's may not be able to do it as well as McCain, but he can sure as hell do it better than Joan of Tuzla.
Joe Biden's campaign in 1988 was laughed off the stage over less than the Tuzla business. At best, it means she's dishonest and thinks we're all complete fucking morons. At worst, it means she's a delusional schizophrenic. Pick your poison.
I recall news reports that Nancy Pelosi was really pissed when Haim Saban called her up and lobbied for Jane Harman to be Chairperson of the House Intelligence Committee.
This was the same Harman who, as Ranking Democrat on the House Intel Committee, had enabled Bush's bullshit "Iraqi WMD Intelligence" in the runup to the war. The Jane Harman who said that if she needed to know anything, she just checks with Haim Saban's Center for Middle East Policy.
As I recall, Pelosi basically told Saban to piss up a rope in her subsequent decision to drop Harman.
"I read the letter, and didn't see any threat. I saw them saying that Pelosi should listen to them because they are donors. But that's hardly the same as saying that they'll stop being donors if she doesn't heed their wishes."
Posted by Al
Like when a man with a gun demands your wallet, if he doesn't say he'll shoot you, there's no threat. it's just a coincidence that he has a gun and thinks you should give him your wallet.
First there was the Middle Passage, then slavery was written into the Constitution, then the Civil War, and Jim Crow.
In 2009 the first black man is inaugerated as President.*
*During the close, contentious Democratic Party primary former first lady Hillary Clinton tried to "Tonya Harding" her way to winning the nomination but ultimately failed.
First there was the Middle Passage, then slavery was written into the Constitution, then the Civil War, and Jim Crow.
In 2009 the first black man is inaugerated as President.*
*During the close, contentious Democratic Party primary former first lady Hillary Clinton tried to "Tonya Harding" her way to winning the nomination but ultimately failed.
First there was the Middle Passage, then slavery was written into the Constitution, then the Civil War, and Jim Crow.
In 2009 the first black man is inaugerated as President.*
*During the close, contentious Democratic Party primary former first lady Hillary Clinton tried to "Tonya Harding" her way to winning the nomination but ultimately failed.
First there was the Middle Passage, then slavery was written into the Constitution, then the Civil War, and Jim Crow.
In 2009 the first black man is inaugerated as President.*
*During the close, contentious Democratic Party primary former first lady Hillary Clinton tried to "Tonya Harding" her way to winning the nomination but ultimately failed.
First there was the Middle Passage, then slavery was written into the Constitution, then the Civil War, and Jim Crow.
In 2009 the first black man is inaugerated as President.*
*During the close, contentious Democratic Party primary former first lady Hillary Clinton tried to "Tonya Harding" her way to winning the nomination but ultimately failed.
jasper, you must be a clinton supporter...51-49 in a poll may be statistically insignificant, because it's a hyopthetical...but 51-49 in the number of pledged delegates is solid ... and not insignificant...wake up and smell the decay on hillary
Comments closed April 09, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
The will of voters is sacred and must be heard! But pledged delegates can exercise independent judgement that doesn't reflect the will of the voters!
Someone elsewhere referred to this crew as the "$uperdelegates" which I rather liked. So $uperdelegates should overrule the Superdelegates would should overrule the pledged delegates who can ignore the will of their district's voters. The People's Voice must be heard!
Posted by TheF79 | March 26, 2008 6:47 PM