Good for Henry

Brad Henry, Oklahoma governor and superdelegate, endorses Barack Obama. Other undeclared superdelegates should likewise state their preferences. If there's a large pro-Clinton group out there, fine. So be it. Stand up and let yourselves be counted. If not, if you're for Obama, then even better -- raise your hand. People keep explaining to me that superdelegates have good selfish reasons to avoid declaring and giving us a chance to end this thing. That's true, but a great many of them also have constituents on whom pressure can be brought to get off the fence without waiting until June.

At this point, we know what we need to know. We know the policy differences between the candidates, we know the "freak show" issues surrounding the candidates, we know the basic shape of each candidate's core electoral coalition, and we know that in the end Obama will have a modest but real lead in elected delegates. Everyone should declare.

Comments

At this point I think we have to assume that many SDs aren't basing their decision about whether or not to endorse on anything rational. Such is life. Perhaps the trickle will increase a bit as pressure on them mounts, but I doubt we'll see a flood anytime soon. If Obama wins both Indy and NC, that could change.

Posted by Jake | April 23, 2008 8:48 AM

Dear Lord,

I humbly beseech you to take the life of Satan's servant Hillary Clinton, in whatever manner thy, in thy infinite wisdom and compassion, deem fit, and send her on her way to her eternal punishment.

Posted by hillaryisSatan | April 23, 2008 8:51 AM

Let's see, CNN currently has Obama up by a total of 130 delegates. If that stays level, and the long view looks like it, that means Hillary would have to nab over 130 delegates above Obama to win the nomination. I'm still digging for the number of remaining uncomitted SDs, but I heard last night they're somewhere around 300. So for Hillary to win, she'll need to carry the remaining SDs by something like 220 to 80.

Um, yeah. Well, at least she's got that going for her.

Posted by Doug H. (Fausto no more) | April 23, 2008 9:01 AM

I have to admit that this isn't a new thought for me -- I've been struggling for the past four years with it. I'm thinking the Democratic Party might not represent my beliefs.

I really watched a Democrat win a primary last night after using images of bin Laden in campaign commercials and threatening to use nuclear weapons against another country. (Is that truly where we are?).

I knew it would be a long, hard slog with Obama as our candidate, but I thought it was a referendum on our country that we really needed -- what kind of nation do we really want to be. I never for a second dreamed that very same slog would start with my own party. I feel ill today.

I hope you do to. And if you do, it's high time we change the course, right here, right now.

Seriously.

Posted by mcd | April 23, 2008 9:04 AM

Dear hillaryisSatan,

0/10. Troll harder.

Sincerely,
Your Lord And Saviour

Posted by Jesus Christ | April 23, 2008 9:05 AM

every day these SDs refuse to take a stand--either way--just reinforces the Republican's trope that Democrats are spineless pussies.

i'm starting to think someone should ferret out the names of the remaining 300, publish them in a big full-page newspaper ad, so they can feel all the pressure in the world to PICK A F**KING SIDE ALREADY.

Posted by rob! | April 23, 2008 9:06 AM

As I noted elsewhere, the premise of Matt's argument is that simply by declaring their support for Obama, the superdelegates could force Clinton to quit.

Well, that premise is false. Clinton has made it abundently clear that she doesn't even view pledged delegates as committed, and in general that she is prepared to go all the way to the convention regardless of what the delegate counts say.

So, with all due respect Matt, stop blaming the superdelegates for this situation. No one actually has the power to force Clinton to quit, and so the responsbility for Clinton not being willing to accept defeat gracefully rests solely with her.

Posted by DTM | April 23, 2008 9:13 AM

See here:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegates-who-havent-endorsed.html

For a (slightly out of date) list of the spineless....

Posted by Andy | April 23, 2008 9:15 AM

See here:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegates-who-havent-endorsed.html

For a (slightly out of date) list of the spineless....

Posted by Andy | April 23, 2008 9:17 AM

every day these SDs refuse to take a stand--either way--just reinforces the Republican's trope that Democrats are spineless pussies.

Apparently, they're right.

Posted by Bill | April 23, 2008 9:20 AM

DTM: Although you are correct that even the endorsement of remaining superdelegates cannot force Hillary to quit, the endorsement could give a sense of closure to the public that could take all the wind out of her sails. She's busy trying to tear apart her own party, and the media is a willing accomplice in perpetuating the illusion that this is a close race. If the superdelegates declare, then Clinton has no moral basis for her continuing destruction of the party. The public mood would likely shift, allowing some necessary healing between demographic groups (i.e. women who think Obama supporters are sexist anti-feminists and Obama supporters who think Hillary supporters are racists).

Posted by Justin | April 23, 2008 9:21 AM

Last night, some talking head on MSNBC predicted Obama would pull a superdelegate endorsement out of his pocket today. Guess they've figured out that trick.

Might as well see what happens in Indiana before we shut this thing down.

Posted by Undecided | April 23, 2008 9:26 AM

On a purely local level, this comes after former Sen. David Boren declared his support for Obama last week.

As far as constituents, neither Henry nor Boren really are playing to them here (Henry knows OK will support McSame, and Boren is president of OU), which raises an interesting question...how many SDs have any sort of electoral pressure on them in the future, and how many are just the 'party elder' types? I haven't seen any sort of breakdown on this at all.

Posted by PW | April 23, 2008 9:27 AM

See here:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegates-who-havent-endorsed.html

For a (slightly out of date) list of the spineless....

Ooops, spoke too soon...

Posted by PW | April 23, 2008 9:32 AM

Dear Matt,

Your blog post headline should have been "Brad Henry is my Oklahomeboy."

But that's OK. :)

~ Jim

Posted by Jim D | April 23, 2008 9:32 AM

See here:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegates-who-havent-endorsed.html

For a (slightly out of date) list of the spineless....

Ooops, spoke too soon...

Posted by PW | April 23, 2008 9:39 AM

See here:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegates-who-havent-endorsed.html

For a (slightly out of date) list of the spineless....

Ooops, spoke too soon...

Posted by PW | April 23, 2008 9:39 AM

Hillary just said that the "tide has turned". I guess her campaign has "turned a corner" and Obama's campaign is in its "last throes".

Hillary is sounding more and more like a Republican every day.

Posted by LFC | April 23, 2008 9:57 AM

I think the main worry about a huge landslide of supers to Obama is that Hillary could go about squawking that the election was stolen from her.

Posted by socctty | April 23, 2008 10:06 AM

One can only hope that the super delegates holding out are doing so hoping that the convention will deadlock and turn to Al Gore, the only candidate who can win in November. Obama and Clinton are losers as the country is not ready for a black or woman president.

Posted by SLC | April 23, 2008 10:09 AM

I actually think Pennsylvania already took the wind out of Hillary's sails. After a month of anticipation, it was a huge anti-climax. She really needed something far more earth-shaking than what happened last night. I have this gut feeling that regardless of what Hillary chooses to do (even taking things to the credentials committee), things ended last night and her campaign efforts (credential committee included) will become more and more irrelevant...

Posted by Rihilism | April 23, 2008 10:12 AM

What's being missed here as well is her frankly desperate plea for money last night. It shows how harmful this drawn out process is for her. Good thing for her is that there's only two weeks of financial bleeding left.

Speaking of supers: Why hasn't Kucinich endorsed Obama? He more or less did back in... New Hampshire, I think. The DemConWatch page says he hasn't committed, though

Posted by socctty | April 23, 2008 10:16 AM

every day these SDs refuse to take a stand--either way--just reinforces the Republican's trope that Democrats are spineless pussies.

Posted by rob! | April 23, 2008 9:06 AM

I'm sure convinced.

Posted by aleks | April 23, 2008 10:23 AM

I agree the SDs need to come out and put an end to this. We need to time to heal in order to get behind the Democratic candidate. It's not about money right now (we already know we have an advantage); time is what is needed now.

Posted by EM | April 23, 2008 10:34 AM

PW: Yes, both Boren and Henry don't have anything personal on the line in this, but I do think that there is something important in their endorsement of Obama that hasn't received sufficient attention in the media.

Neither Hillary nor Obama are likely to win Oklahoma, but there is a difference in their candidacies that I think Boren and Henry are aware of: Obama can turn out Dem voters to a greater extent than can Hillary, even though Hillary won here on Super Tuesday. This means that with Obama as the candidate the RNC will have to spend more money here; it means that Jim Inhofe will have to spend some money; but more importantly, it means that there is a far, far better chance for Dems to win local and state races. Since things are split 50/50 in the state legislature, that is an important thing in personal terms for both: Henry would have a more cooperative legislature, and Boren might actually get more money for OU and (hope is hope) maybe even do something about the low pay and awful benefits at OU compared to other universities in the region. In that sense, both clearly do have an interest in Obama being the candidate: a party interest, and a pragmatic political interest.

I imagine that this is repeated throughout the country at the local level.

What all of this boils down to is, in my opinion, something slightly different than Hillary deciding which states matter and the media towing the line. This is really about is whether the Democratic Party is a national party, or whether the Democratic Party is a regional party. If the Dem SDs ask us to participate and vote, and then decide that our votes don't matter, we'll remember that when it comes time to stuff envelopes, make phone calls, and make donations.

Obama has run a national campaign because he and some others in the Democratic Party are thinking beyond November 2008 and beyond their own specific careers. Hillary's campaign has been a regional campaign, centered on her as a candidate. Do Democratic Party leaders really think that so little changed over the last eight years -- despite protestations to the contrary -- that they really can't think beyond the campaign immediately before them? Has so little changed that they can't stray from a script that has brought at best mere survival?

I guess we'll find out...

Posted by Charly Gardel | April 23, 2008 11:09 AM

Clinton's arguments to the supers are all smoke and mirrors, and moot, because she is unelectable in the general. If the Democratic Party is insane enough to overturn the primary results it will drive away the new voters and AA voters and the next generation that have worked their hearts out for Obama. These folks will just stay home in November if Clinton is the nominee, and she'll lose. (That's what she'd be arguing, btw, if she was in Obama's position now). It's testament to the Clintonian mystique that this essential point is not even considered as we all anguish or exult over the primary. It's clear that Democratic dead-enders (including the MSM) are in thrall to the Terminator, but that dynasty is dead. It just doesn't know it yet.

Democrats have a chance to expand their party in the way that Reagan rebuilt the Republican Party in 1980, but they can only do so with Obama at the helm. The party has to decide whether it wants to move into the future, or join the Clintons in the masoleum.

Posted by nyc | April 23, 2008 11:47 AM

Clinton's arguments to the supers are all smoke and mirrors, and moot, because she is unelectable in the general. If the Democratic Party is insane enough to overturn the primary results it will drive away the new voters and AA voters and the next generation that have worked their hearts out for Obama. These folks will just stay home in November if Clinton is the nominee, and she'll lose. (That's what she'd be arguing, btw, if she was in Obama's position now). It's testament to the Clintonian mystique that this essential point is not even considered as we all anguish or exult over the primary. It's clear that Democratic dead-enders (including the MSM) are in thrall to the Terminator, but that dynasty is dead. It just doesn't know it yet.

Democrats have a chance to expand their party in the way that Reagan rebuilt the Republican Party in 1980, but they can only do so with Obama at the helm. The party has to decide whether it wants to move into the future, or join the Clintons in the masoleum.

Posted by nyc | April 23, 2008 11:50 AM

Clinton's arguments to the supers are all smoke and mirrors, and moot, because she is unelectable in the general. If the Democratic Party is insane enough to overturn the primary results it will drive away the new voters and AA voters and the next generation that have worked their hearts out for Obama. These folks will just stay home in November if Clinton is the nominee, and she'll lose. (That's what she'd be arguing, btw, if she was in Obama's position now). It's testament to the Clintonian mystique that this essential point is not even considered as we all anguish or exult over the primary. It's clear that Democratic dead-enders (including the MSM) are in thrall to the Terminator, but that dynasty is dead. It just doesn't know it yet.

Democrats have a chance to expand their party in the way that Reagan rebuilt the Republican Party in 1980, but they can only do so with Obama at the helm. The party has to decide whether it wants to move into the future, or join the Clintons in the masoleum.

Posted by nyc | April 23, 2008 11:52 AM

Sorry for multiple postings! The site told me my comment couldn't be posted, so I tried it again. Yikes.

Posted by nyc | April 23, 2008 11:54 AM

The superdelegates who have not declared are scared of the Clintons. What if they declare for Obama and Clinton wins? They'll have exposed themselves to Clinton's retribution.

Posted by adam | April 23, 2008 12:06 PM

The superdelegates who have not declared are scared of the Clintons. What if they declare for Obama and Clinton wins? They'll have exposed themselves to Clinton's retribution.

Posted by adam | April 23, 2008 12:10 PM

I think we should apply game theory to the situation. Running through all possible scenarios, it is clear that even an Obama loss in the GE would have a huge positive impact for Dems at the congressional, muni and state level. There is still a positive party building function that comes from that. If Obama wins we would then have an opportunity to demonstrate national leadership and governance that would reshape our negative image from the leadership of the Clintons or Carter. If the Sd's give it to the Clintons, the alienation of the Dems most loyal voting block over the past 40 years would have consequences of unknown magnitude. It would also be looked at as an act of cynical politics that will damage the party with youth and independents. The Clintons could win this year in a change election, but the party would surely be injured for a generation. And we know by the way the Clintons govern that it will hurt the party with seats in cong. and muni and state level. I could talk about a lot of individual elections just in this cycle that would be jeopardized. And of course if the Clintons lose, our party is royally f'd.

Am I missing something here?

Posted by Bubba | April 23, 2008 12:30 PM

I have always been an independent and have gone either way at elections. This is the first campaign I have really felt I could "be a democrat" heart, vote, and soul because of Obama.
But... as previously voiced, I am remembering why I have waffled in the past, about the "weak on war democrats",(I totally oppose this current war"), but the fact that democrats as the speaker ahead of me so eloquently are a bunch of p---ies, or as I will call them Wussies. Wow, they can not look beyond the playbill and endorse. Close the curtain, bow and move on to the BIG SHOW!

Posted by DEL | April 23, 2008 12:48 PM

>Obama has run a national campaign because he and some others in the Democratic Party are thinking beyond November 2008 and beyond their own specific careers. Hillary's campaign has been a regional campaign, centered on her as a candidate.
*****************

Give me a break! Obama spent more time in caucus states that will go Republican in the fall (Idaho, Kansas etc.) b/c the caucus format is good for his demographic and because he wanted to win delegates there! This is ALL ABOUT his career! (And that's OK, he's a politician and there's nothing wrong with that, but draping the mantle of selflessness over his tactics is ridiculous.) HRC clearly erred strategically by not investing more in the caucus states, but there is ZERO evidence from this that Obama is any less careerist than her. As the nominee Obama would not spend time campaigning selflessly in bright Red states like Oklahoma either.

If Obama is the nominee he will lose Oklahoma worse than HRC would. The reason Henry and Boren are supporting him b/c they think that regardless of what has happened and will happen in Oklahoma, Obama is more likely to be nominated and hence to be President and they want to be on his good side. It's called getting on the bandwagon. It's not a new thing either.

Posted by Vito Marzullo | April 23, 2008 12:56 PM

If Obama is the nominee he will lose Oklahoma worse than HRC would. Posted by Vito Marzullo | April 23, 2008 12:56 PM

Perhaps. While he may get less votes in completely conservative parts of the state, his turnout in the Dem areas could make the difference between picking up a few seats in OK legislature, where lower Hillary turnout in those districts would not, but she would win more votes in conservative areas that might just be meaningless anyways.

Posted by Bubba | April 23, 2008 2:22 PM

First, ditto Jim D. Second, on the constituents point, I think actually very few superdelegates are elected representatives. Of the nearly 800 super-d's, only about 230 are Representatives, 50 are Senators, 30-ish governors, and fifty state party chairs. The ex-presidents, other notable officiants and ex-officiants, and especially current members of the DNC (that last group comprising the lion's share of super-d's) do not really have constituencies in the sense you're thinking of. Perhaps there are Members of the House from Oregon and Kentucky that haven't endorsed either candidate yet, but they're really the exception to the rule here.

Posted by Jack Roy | April 23, 2008 3:22 PM

Vito wrote: Give me a break! Obama spent more time in caucus states that will go Republican in the fall (Idaho, Kansas etc.) b/c the caucus format is good for his demographic and because he wanted to win delegates there! This is ALL ABOUT his career!

Yeah, I pretty much completely disagree and think that you are missing the point here. Obama has done well in caucus states not because the format is good for his demographic, but because the caucus format favors candidates who mobilize their supporters. This is why caucuses have historically gone to candidates with a well-developed machine, with active union support, etc., and not favored candidates who appeal to unorganized sectors of the population like suburban professionals. Despite protestations to the contrary, Hillary should have trounced Obama in the caucus states; she didn't, because her campaign didn't think beyond Super Tuesday, and they certainly didn't even consider actually having a national campaign. On a really basic, pragmatic level, that does not speak well of her management skills, and speaks volumes about the lack of foresight she has shown. She should have to campaign, the self-evident righteousness of her candidacy should have brought all of us to greet her with flowers. Why have an actual plan?

The fact that the caucus dynamic has changed with Obama is precisely why his candidacy is such a big deal, and it has little to do with speaches. He has been the catalyst for a mobilization that has brought unprecedented numbers of previously unorganized people to participate and contribute. His campaign has done an incredible job of encouraging self-mobilization and has aided that mobilization as best they could. And Obama has done that not just in the safe areas, but in places like Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, Virginia and, yes, Oklahoma -- even after the primary here.

As far as Boren and Henry are concerned, I think that you are pretty much completely wrong. For starters, Boren's political career is over, beyond his position as president of the university. There really would have been no penalty for him if he had backed Hillary. Both Boren and Henry could have very easily just sat on the sidelines like so many other SDs and not too many people would have noticed. They clearly have a positive interest in Obama being the candidate (as opposed to a fear of reprisal from an Obama administration), which I explained above. They directly benefit from a mobilization of Dem voters in Oklahoma that Obama can create and that Hillary simply cannot. That Obama would still almost surely lose Oklahoma -- as would Hillary -- is beside the point; Dems would make gains across the state. There's also been quite a shift here in Oklahoma since the primary. If it were held today, without Edwards on the ballot, I really doubt that Hillary would win.

Let's put it this way. Since early February the Clinton campaign has made it crystal clear to those of us in red states that we don't matter. The Clinton campaign has told us this far too many times for us not to notice. They don't care about our votes, they don't care about our candidates, we are simply irrelevant as far as they are concerned, since we do nothing -- explicitly -- for her. They have been absolutely clear that we have no place in the presidential campaign because we don't live in New York, California, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, etc.

This is the very definition of a regional -- rather than national -- Democratic Party. Her best case scenario is that she wins the nomination and the presidency, and, like her husband, loses Congress and paves the way for the kind of debacle we have now.

That's not the case with Obama. I don't know where you live, but from where I'm sitting here in central Oklahoma, that's a pretty striking difference between the two. Henry and Boren know this. Obama has run the national campaign that Hillary hasn't bothered to run; he's contributing to the growth of the party in ways that the Clinton campaign has declared -- to the detriment of her own campaign and the broader interests of Democrats and progressives as a whole -- irrelevant.

Oh, but then serious coastal liberals might have to face up to the unpleasant fact that there are actually also progressives out here in places like Oklahoma -- or, as a friend of mine in London put it -- "on the front lines in the battle against quotidian idiocy."

Plus, Wayne Coyne lives here and not in Los Angeles. That, in and of itself, should cancel out the presence of Toby Keith and 205,000 of his reddest-necked, flag-underwear-wearing admirers.

Posted by Charly Gardel | April 23, 2008 9:04 PM

I think that there is also the following dynamics: "50 states strategy" versus "Washington insiders". The activists from unimportant states do not like the status of unimportant state. And nationally, there is some kind of schism on that point.

More strategically, a narrow Democratic majority gives power to centrists, who all to often are overly pro-bussiness, pro-imperialist etc. A large majority would marginalize at least the more extreme centrists (think Lieberman). And that requires scrapping every Congressional district we can, and this requires to have as many majorities as we can get in state houses etc. Which to centrists is a waste of resources. Which pisses of quite centrist Democrats from unimportant states.

Plus, folks from unimportant parts of important states, like Centre County of PA.

Posted by piotr | April 24, 2008 6:27 PM