I have to say that I'm getting really tired of this. All the superdelegates should just say who they're voting for and bring this to the end. If they want to back Hillary Clinton despite Obama's majority in elected delegates, they should say so. Or if they want Barack Obama to be the nominee, they should say so. The idea that in two weeks we'll have another inconclusive primary, then another, then another, then another and then the superdelegates make up their mind is inane -- everyone else who follows politics can decide.
« It's Official | Main | Money »
Save Us!
22 Apr 2008 09:30 pm
Comments (121)
Amen. The anti-climaxes are killing me.
OT, but, once again, The Onion anticipates the news.
From The Onion: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says
(Video).
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/9_11_conspiracy_theories
From Haaretz, Israeli Jewish daily newspaper: Qaida No. 2: Hezbollah started rumor that Israel planned 9/11
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/977011.html
Osama bin Laden's deputy Al-Zawahri on Tuesday accused Hezbollah's Al-Manar television of starting a conspiracy theory that Israel was behind the 2001 suicide airplane hijacking against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
"The purpose of this lie is clear - [to suggest] that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history. Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it," he said in a lengthy audiotape posted on an Islamic web site.
Meanwhile, Al Qa'ida is clearly falling afoul of their HR department:
Asked if there are any women in Al-Qaida, the terror leader answered simply "no."
I voted for Obama in Bucks County at 7:00 AM this morning. I left for Pennsylvania from New York City (where I go to college) last night after classes, voted this morning, and returned before my classes today. It looks like Clinton will take my county. What a waste of time that was! I also convinced both my parents to vote for Obama, but it looks like my family makes up only a small fraction of the county (and the state). Maybe I'll just vote absentee in November.
I agree 100%. I don't know why the Democrats don't understand that showing spine is ok. Looking wishy washy is not and the whole party looks wishy washy when their leaders can't do math and come out with a decision. Six weeks since Texas, every Super should have been on record.
P.S. McCaskill was excellent on MSNBC, why doesn't anyone talk about her for VP?
Those sexists.
The other option is that you could acknowledge that maybe you're wrong about this primary process being "incredibly damaging."
How would I go about finding out who my own non-pledged delegate(s) is/are?
Matt, you are talking about Democratic party bigwigs. They are scared to order breakfast without a focus group. Make a choice sure to make them powerful enemies? I suspect many of them will abstain on the first ballot of the convention. They'd rather lose than be responsible for anything.
Who the fuck does the shitty IT for The Atlantic? Fire them and hire Richard Steven Hack.
Blah gets it right. Our leaders don't lead, they are led by a misinformed (by choice or otherwise) public. The pop vote is the ultimate justification, but lets face it, a lot of them will go by their own state vote, not the national vote (and they'd be crazy not to). So with that in mind....why not declare if your state has already voted, and why not declare if you have strong personal opinions even before your state votes?
Witness Iraq. To actually do something without polling and based on facts, or, in this case, opinion, is simply too much to ask of our "elected" leaders. Leading is not what they do, justifying decisions in retrospect is what they do. The exact opposite of leadership.
And I don't mean to "disenfranchise" those in states that still have to vote, but the idea that the pop vote in Indiana or NC is going to change the vote of enough SD's to change the result is pure fantasy. Any SD not located in the states who still have to vote should have the guts to step forward now and pledge support.
Remember, Obama's also ahead in the popular vote and that may not change this evening.
What I fear? That some are holding back rather than risk the Wrath of Clinton. Both pols and MSM don't want to lose access to him.
Truth is, HRC's a pit bull, but not domesticated. She will keep on fighting until she's either locked up or put down.
How would I go about finding out who my own non-pledged delegate(s) is/are?
What's your district?
I have to say that I'm getting really tired of this.
Well, that settles it then... :)
You have a point though. I have no doubt many superdelegates are getting a kick out of the extended contest.
Obviously I'm all for this race ending as soon as possible, but if the superdelegates all cast their votes tomorrow, the results still wouldn't be definitive. Certainly it'd give Obama an insurmountable lead, but that's exactly what we he has RIGHT NOW.
After North Carolina and Indiana, the superdelegates really will be able to step in and hand Obama a +2025 delegate lead. I'm not saying this will happen, but I do think this is the argument Obama supporters should start making.
The conclusion appears to be that Hillary has the momentum and Obama can't win big states.
I don't see how a superdelegate could feel comfortable supporting Obama now. He's been incredibly weak down the stretch. The voters are rejecting him.
I do believe that this idiotic primary has now officially jumped the shark. It happened the moment that clown Lanny Davis called for Howard Dean to resign on Fox News today. Now this with the Superdelegates? Why do I get the feeling that everyone wishes the Clintons would just go away, but no one wants to tell them to ther face.
I do believe that the inability of the Clinton campaign to maintain such large leads in every state raises serious questions about her candidacy
She is like the crazy ex-girlfiend that crashes her x-boyfriend’s wedding…
The wedding goes on, but she looks pathetic and a spoiler, and makes everyone cringe and pity her.
She is selfish, grubby and thuggish and is now solely relying on McCarthyism and the counter punches from RNC and McCain to destroy Obama.
She is succeeding in hurting Obama, but as another horrible consequence, she is also harming the rest of the Dem candidates this November.
If she continues the Dem will have less than half of the money compared to what it will be if she withdraws now and Obama can go on the offensive against McCain and the Republicans. WISE UP DEMOCRATS. STOP THE SELF DESTRUCTION.
Bill’s reputation, for it was worth, is now that of a racist Joe McCarthy.
Heck of a Job Clintons.
Yes, this process is getting really tiresome. It's not helping the party, and it's not changing the outcome.
It's not clear to me that superdelegates declaring their preference would do much to bring this to a close now. I think we're looking at early June in any case. But certainly, by then, they ought to declare.
I bet a few of 'em declare this week.
^Aahahahaha
"The conclusion"
"All the superdelegates should just say who they're voting for and bring this to the end."
This is beautifully obtuse. I'm sure the superdelegates are just itching to minimize their importance.
Personally, I want them to wait until after N.Carolina/Indiana. That should be resolved favorably for Obama. It would not do to have the lead candidate be coronated by super delegates after losing his last contested primary. There's no reason to think they're going anywhere but to Obama; if I were them, however, I would at least wait until after a win for the O man.
This is the kind of statement that would backfire if Clinton pulls it off in IN/NC... but realistically, the trend is that Obama gains support at Clinton's expense, so there's no reason to think his leads in those states are going away. This is her last favorable state. (Except, Oregon hasn't went... I have no idea how they're situated).
P.S. McCaskill was excellent on MSNBC, why doesn't anyone talk about her for VP? Posted by Patrick | April 22, 2008 9:41 PMI agree completely. She was great. I was really impressed with her and most impressively she shut up Matthews. How many people can do that?
1) Since we've suffered this long, there is no good reason not to wait until North Carolina and Indiana hold their primaries. It's only 2 more weeks, and then the delegate math will be so simply, even the Washington DC press corps will get it; and
2) She might still be running so he'll feel obliged to pick her for VP.
Umm... It's a really interesting story. I've made excuses to get drunk and do shots every time Chris Matthews says something stupid. It's been a party and stuff - yippee! The next primary will be fun too - it makes for good television. If the networks seriously wanted it over, it'd be over by now. Done deal. But it makes for excellent television - it's the same reason Lost has lasted for 4 seasons instead of an incredible 3.
... and because those who have power want to maintain that power. Power is cool.
2) She might still be running so he'll feel obliged to pick her for VP. Posted by 2 Cents | April 22, 2008 10:03 PMIs she is running for that then she is going to keep on running until inauguration day. Ain't gonna happen
Maddow makes a good point- why are white men considered the swing vote? Dems lost them in '06.
Barack Obama remains the strongest candidate to face John McCain. Here’s a good summary of some reasons to consider supporting Obama: http://acropolisreview.com/2008/04/top-reasons-to-give-barack-obama-your.html
Share the summary with friends in North Carolina and Indiana.
Posted by Undecided | April 22, 2008 9:55 PM
Your concern is noted, GOPwit.
Poor Matthew. He's really rather simple at times. It's amazing, really.
As always, the people who will make the decisions are the people with MONEY. As I noted, Hillary is $10 Mil in debt and only has $9 Mil to cover.
Every pilot knows what happens when the engine begins to stutter and the thing on the front of the plane stops turning.
If big donors don't jump in -- and many of her supporters are already tapped out per FEC law -- then she is toast. Given the shoestring op she ran here, I'd say her chances of finding new donors and raising cash in the next few weeks are slim.
Unless Wild Bill is feeling uncharacteristically generous. Boy, I would LOVE to hear that conversation in the morning.
Amen, a thousand times over. This needs to end now. Contrary to what some might say, this is not good for the Democratic Party.
She might still be running so he'll feel obliged to pick her for VP.
Has there ever been a VP nominee who didn't endorse the head of their own ticket?
I don't see how a superdelegate could feel comfortable supporting Obama now. He's been incredibly weak down the stretch. The voters are rejecting him.
I agree--he's lost...um, one primary in a row.
I'd be kidding if I said I wasn't concerned about the willingness of the Floyd R. Turbo vote to support Obama in November. But if Democrats are just going to say that no black person can ever be the party nominee, then there's no point in being a Democrat. Especially if the alternative is someone who has spent the last week making common cause with R. M. Scaife and attacking Move On, which came into being in the first place to save her husband's bacon. She's no Democrat at all at this point.
Can someone shut Matthews up? What is he blathering on about? This garbage about "That's how people think in Philadelphia.
Someone told me the other day that now that he announced he could run for the Senate, that he is even more untrustworthy. Well my god, his paeans to PA and Philly is just making me sick at this point and I think that there just might be something to that.
His contract is up in Jan. 09. I bet he gets cut loose my MSNBC the day after election day. Unfortunately he is only going to get replacd by that idiot Gregory, who I believe probably no one, including fellow journalists, politicians or even viewers likes.
If Matthews get replaced by anyone, I hope to god it is Schuster. He's nuts, but man he is not afraid to go there.
I'm depressed as hell.
Don't they usually try to get a diverse group of people to stand behind you at rallies?
It's sickening to see Hillary and her surrogates on TV; they are all literally repulsive.
And there is no historical evidence to support the claim that whoever wins a state in the primary would win it in the general election...nor that whoever loses a state in the primary would lose it in the general election.
There are too many examples to name...but consider this: by Clintonian reasoning, McCain doesn't stand a chance in the many southern states that went for Huckabee. And I guess we shouldn't worry about Michigan, because that went for Romney and not McCain in the primary.
See how foolish this gets?
"The idea that in two weeks we'll have another inconclusive primary, then another, then another, then another and then the superdelegates make up their mind is inane"
Having primaries where regular Democratic voters can vote is inane? Why not just let the Supreme Soviet/superdelegates decide in December next time, and skip all that pesky democracy stuff.
Nicole- she can't win: http://youtube.com/watch?v=jwd88C25J-0
Don't fret. Superdelegates are not going to overturn the will of the voters. She's broke. She cannot win.
The only downside of tonight is that we have to hear her cackling and threats to obliterate other nations for two more weeks.
But if Democrats are just going to say that no black person can ever be the party nominee, then there's no point in being a Democrat. Posted by ChuckE | April 22, 2008 10:13 PMI have to agree with that. Well said. That is the basis of her argument. "Obama is Black, BLACK! HE CANNOT WIN!" That is what her campaign right now amounts to.
For those of you who are getting sick of this...
I made the same mistake, and have come to the conclusion that the key is STOP WASTING TIME paying attention the margin of victory in Pennsylvania, etc.
Apply to directly to forehead.
"... the mothers who lift their daughters up and tell them 'see, you can be anything you want.'"
True, you can even dodge sniper fire in Tuzla.
A wonderful example to set.
The conclusion appears to be that Hillary has the momentum and Obama can't win big states.
I don't see how a superdelegate could feel comfortable supporting Obama now. He's been incredibly weak down the stretch. The voters are rejecting him.
OK, I'll bite. Let's play the pretend-I'm-a-superdelegate game.
Hmm, this Obama is looking weak, so I think I'll pick Hillary because she has demonstrated a superior ability to win more states, votes, delegates and... uh... wait a second!
cm, not to mention that Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Virginia, Maine, and maybe even Connecticut (with Lieberman) are all battleground states, especially when you consider McCain's appeal.
Someone laid it out a few weeks ago. If Clinton's the nominee, you risk losing black people, young people, Independents, new voters, and Obamacans. The last four are groups that are unlikely to vote for Hillary.
If Obama wins, you lose some of the white women vote and the "deer hunter" vote. Keep in mind that white women trail only black people in terms of consistently voting Democratic, which is why I'm pretty sure they'll come around. "Deer hunters" won't vote for Hillary anyway, and as '06 proved, aren't a key Democratic constituency.
The risk is that a huge population of 65+ leaves for McCain, but A)I think he can win them over with his economic proposals B) his other demographic advantages overwhelm.
FOR GOD'S SAKE ATLANTIC, GET BETTER I.T. GUYS
Her whole "victory speech" is about riling up angry white women. My god. She keeps plugging her website and calling for donations, it really must be a desperate financial situation.
I wish someone could tell the gullible that all the money they donate is going into Mark Penn's pocket. She owes him $4.9m! She wants her poor and uneducated supporters to send her money so that she can give it to him? That is immoral.
I just pray to god that Obama does not put his foot in his mouth one more time and he has a good two weeks of campaigning and we can end this on May 6th.
But with limited resources, I think the only thing that Hillary can do from here on out is now attack, attack, attack. With the next primary only two weeks out, she is going to start attacking tomorrow. I guarantee it.
Still "Undecided"? Didn't you vote today? Or couldn't you decide?
The results of the primaries in no way predict the general election. If that's true Kerry would have carried Texas against Bush.
Hillary is really sickening; basically she does well wherever there is a racist vote.
And if she can say that Obama can't win because he's black, then we can say that she can't win because she's a woman. We can say that she can't win because of all the Clinton scandals.
I muted Hillary's speech- did she really say that bit about daughters?
Will Obama say, "Young, teenage, single mothers can hold up their black babies and say 'You can do anything!'"
She keeps plugging her website and calling for donations
Yeah, I thought I was watching an infomercial for a minute.
It sure would be comforting to see Obama win a big rust belt primary. Especially with a 4-1 spending advantage. He gets yet another shot in Indiana.
Close it out already, Barack. Or get out of Hillary's way.
Hmm, this Obama is looking weak, so I think I'll pick Hillary because she has demonstrated a superior ability to win more states, votes, delegates and... uh... wait a second! Posted by Sam | April 22, 2008 10:26 PMYou forgot fundraising too!
Having primaries where regular Democratic voters can vote is inane?
Your concern is noted, Old Fart Fred.
The remaining votes don't change the outcome. They're junk time. That's a shame for the people who are voting in them, but in terms of the primary, they're meaningless. The only meaning they have is to allow the Clinton campaign its chance of victory, which comes only if they manage to end Obama's entire political career.
Hmm, this Obama is looking weak, so I think I'll pick Hillary because she has demonstrated a superior ability to win more states, votes, delegates and... uh... wait a second!
No, Hillary has demonstrated an ability to win swing states & traditional democratic states, Obama has demonstrated an ability to win democratic primaries & caucuses in traditional republican states which haven't been won by a Democratic Presidential Candidate in the last forty years (Wyoming, Mississippi), so the real question is what are the odds that Obama can win those states in the general election? Personally I think that the odds are somewhere between slim and nill.
OH, please, shoot this poor horse now!
I just found out the delegation she wants to seat out of MN gave about half the "uncommitted" delegates to union representatives widely believed to be Clinton backers. We've left democracy a loooooong way back, and Clinton doesn't seem to give a piss about the concept anyway. Shut this son of a bitch down.
Apparently, to some parts of the Democratic party black votes are good enough, but black candidates are not.
That would be the overwhelming message of a SD coup. Only Hill-o-bots would be crazy enough to think getting their way would be a good enough reason to murder the party for a generation.
"... the mothers who lift their daughters up and tell them 'see, you can be anything you want.'"
...unless those daughters are black, according to Clinton.
Translating from Matt into English:
"My favored candidate is getting beaten up by the Democratic process. What we need is a pre-emption of that process to prevent more of it".
Translating from James Robertson into English:
"I'm too stupid to know that PA is but one state in a 50 state process."
Matt, what is your problem with waiting to find out the result of the entire primary campaign? Why is this about how tired YOU are of the process? Why don't you stop paying attention to it if you are weary of it? Blog about other stuff in the meanwhile.
The idea that because you and John Cole are tired of the campaign it should all be wrapped up immediately is really pretty narcisistic and I don't know...ridiculous.
Apparently, to some parts of the Democratic party black votes are good enough, but black candidates are not. Posted by Soullite | April 22, 2008 10:46 PMAnd that is why McCain is going around trying to meet everyday black people in Memphis and MS. Hillary wants to tell Blacks to pay their fare but sit in the back of the bus.
bjd: It's one state after 7 weeks of campaigning, when Obama should have been able to close the deal - esecially after outspending his opponent by nearly 3-1.
If you don't see the problem with losing a battleground state by 10 points after massively outspending his opponent, you aren't paying attention.
Why wasn't Hillary able to increase support from white women? I mean, she lost ground amongst her base.
If I was a superdelegate, I'd hold my vote.
Every step closer where nobody is getting a first ballot victory is a step closer to choosing someone else, preferably Gore. It's a 90 day sprint for the chosen nominee at the convention, and probably better than these two candidates at beating McCain.
Personally, I'd vote for Hillary or Obama over McCain, so I'm not preferring one over the other. I am, however, saying Gore has a better chance of beating McCain in the fall.
In response to several previous commenters: It's not about "being tired" of the campaign, it's about knowing that every day this goes on makes President McCain all the more likely. Never mind the "Democratic year" nonsense; the Dems are losing all that momentum in this disaster. McCain is just sitting back, knowing that Clinton's attacks are weakening Obama as a candidate. The GOP knows they're going to lose congressional seats, but they also know that if they hold onto the presidency that won't matter very much; Bush has shown how an unpopular president and a GOP minority can completely stymie the congressional Dems, plus they have the Supreme Court in their pockets for a generation. With McCain in the presidency, they'll be able to continue the rape of the economy on behalf of the top 1% and the endless war project, and Clinton, whom they supposedly despise, is doing a lot of their work for them. By the time the Dem primary is finally over, Obama will have been terribly weakened, and the GOP and their media enablers will have a road map for how to finish the job.
In response to several previous commenters: It's not about "being tired" of the campaign, it's about knowing that every day this goes on makes President McCain all the more likely. Never mind the "Democratic year" nonsense; the Dems are losing all that momentum in this disaster. McCain is just sitting back, knowing that Clinton's attacks are weakening Obama as a candidate. The GOP knows they're going to lose congressional seats, but they also know that if they hold onto the presidency that won't matter very much; Bush has shown how an unpopular president and a GOP minority can completely stymie the congressional Dems, plus they have the Supreme Court in their pockets for a generation. With McCain in the presidency, they'll be able to continue the rape of the economy on behalf of the top 1% and the endless war project, and Clinton, whom they supposedly despise, is doing a lot of their work for them. By the time the Dem primary is finally over, Obama will have been terribly weakened, and the GOP and their media enablers will have a road map for how to finish the job.
beckya57 is right, and the worst thing is, if the Democrats blow this, many (like myself) will leave the party forever.
Did everybody here about the scandal? In America's pastime, no less! The Boston Red Sox are false champions! They were crowned as winners BEFORE ALL THE GAMES WERE PLAYED! Why does America's pastime hate America? The baseball elitists STOPPED NEARLY 5O% OF THE GAMES FROM BEING PLAYED!
Just because of some spurious arguments based on so-called "math" the COLORADO ROCKIES WERE DEPRIVED JUSTICE!
DEFEAT SEXIST MATH! VOTE HILLARY!!!
What's the biggest state Obama has won? It seems like Hillary is winning the biggest 7 or 8 states in the country.
The "screenplay" that was published in New York (?) magazine a few weeks back about the convention in Denver had an interesting nugget of nomination procedure: you don't need a majority of votes cast at the convention -- you really do need 2024 votes. So if A gets 2000 votes, B gets 1900 votes, and 147 delegates don't vote then you start over. In a rational world, abstentions wouldn't count and the guy who gets the most votes period wins. But this is the donkey party, not the rational world. It seems to me that a rule forcing superdelegates to vote would make life much less painful for everyone (except the SDs trying simultaneously have and eat their cake).
Also, how about both agreeing not to campaign from here on out, and just let the voters have their say? Unless they've been under rocks, the folks in remaining states should know what's what by now. This would keep things from devolving further, keep all the states happy, and stop all the contributors from wasting money further.
Ok so I know this will be controversial, but I think this the superdelegate race is the single biggest area where race is having an effect on this campaign.
To be completely blunt, the single strongest argument Clinton could make is that it is a completely open question as to whether American voters will willingly vote for a black man. It's a serious point -- there clearly are still some self-identified racists in this country, and there are many, many, many more people who would refuse to support a black candidate on incredibly tenuous grounds even while bristling at being called racist. That's just a reality of the American electorate.
Of course, there is no way Clinton can actually make this argument. But I don't think she really has to. The superdelegates have been through elections, either as candidates or on the strategy/support end. They see how race plays out in elections in this country. It's a reasonable doubt to have, even if it's not one that anyone feels politically secure expressing publicly. And Clinton has subtly stoked these doubts with her aggressive pushing of the Jeremiah Wright story, and the many attempts to paint Obama as being Muslim (or inappropriately pro-Muslim).
And so, on one hand, there would seem to be a bigger strategic basis for counter-majoritarian action here than you would usually think. At the same time, that very basis is politically untouchable. So you get paralysis. For what it's worth, I think the situation would be exactly the same if reversed, particularly if Obama was running an aggressive campaign analogous to Clinton's -- the first serious female candidate raises issues of her own.
As I said, this is probably a more controversial analysis than people want to accept. But does anyone seriously think the superdelegates would be sitting on their hands if Clinton were running against Joe Biden? Or even John Edwards?
"What's the biggest state Obama has won? It seems like Hillary is winning the biggest 7 or 8 states in the country."
Texas?
Also Illinois at 5, Georgia at 9, North Carolina at 10, Virginia at 12, Washington at 13.
But hey, clearly those are all composed entirely of latte-drinking elites.
This isn't about you, you "trust fund scumbag."
55: "Who the fuck does the shitty IT for The Atlantic? Fire them and hire Richard Steven Hack."
Thank you. I'm not that expensive, either - unless you're hiring me for serious jobs like finding bin Laden. Then I cost a bundle. But for IT work, I'm very reasonable.
Meanwhile, as for Clinton, the LA Times has the right attitude: nothing has changed.
Clinton's Pennsylvania victory doesn't do much for her odds
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-assess23apr23,1,1939787.story
Money Quotes:
Even with the Pennsylvania win, Clinton still trails by nearly every measure: the popular vote, the number of states won, the delegates captured so far in primaries and caucuses. Obama also has narrowed Clinton's once-formidable lead in superdelegates to roughly two dozen.
More delegates are at stake in the May 6 primaries in Indiana and North Carolina -- a combined 187 -- than the 158 awarded today in Pennsylvania.
"It's bitter, it's divisive," said G. Terry Madonna, a political science professor at Franklin & Marshall College in Pennsylvania. "They're name-calling, and it's not the surrogates, it's the candidates doing that."
Why do people talk about the amount of money that Obama spent when they don't take into account the millions of dollars of advantage that Clinton has via her name recognition and her husband campaigning for her. What would it cost to hire for a former president to be campaigning like this for her?
Why do people talk about the amount of money that Obama spent when they don't take into account the millions of dollars of advantage that Clinton has via her name recognition and her husband campaigning for her. What would it cost to hire a former president to be campaigning like this for her?
matt,
we all went to elite colleges, public and private.
why be tired?
i'm a lot older than you, but this is the most fun
i have had in a long time.
there is, at least, a debate, of sorts.
let us make the most of it.
is the alternative being bored?
right now we all have something to consider
and talk about.
best of luck in your future
matt,
we all went to elite colleges, public and private.
why be tired?
i'm a lot older than you, but this is the most fun
i have had in a long time.
there is, at least, a debate, of sorts.
let us make the most of it.
is the alternative being bored?
right now we all have something to consider
and talk about.
best of luck in your future
matt,
we all went to elite colleges, public and private.
why be tired?
i'm a lot older than you, but this is the most fun
i have had in a long time.
there is, at least, a debate, of sorts.
let us make the most of it.
is the alternative being bored?
right now we all have something to consider
and talk about.
best of luck in your future
Because at this point in the campaign, her name recognition is exhausted and Obama has the "change" label recognition.
As for former Presidents, Gore and Carter are going to endorse Obama, according to reports, probably after the next primary if not sooner.
And a lot of people don't like Bill Clinton - they blame him and Monica for putting Bush in the White House. And they see this drawn out campaign as putting McCain in the White House.
Don Quijote,
Get your facts straight. Obama has won 26 states (27 including the District of Columbia) in 2008. Fifteen of these 26 states (16 of 27, counting D.C.) have voted Democratic in at least one election since 1992. Ten states (Washington, Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Hawai'i) (plus D.C.) voted Democratic as recently as 2004. (So did Oregon, which Obama may also win.) An eleventh state (Iowa) voted Democratic in 2000. Two more (Missouri and Louisiana) voted Democratic in 1996. Yet two more (Colorado and Georgia) voted Democratic in 1992. (Incidentally, so did Montana, a state Obama is expected to win.)
Note the cherry-picking as these folks always mention Wyoming and Utah, but ignore Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, etc.
It is an outright falsehood that Obama has only won in states that haven't gone Democratic in 40 years. Harold Ickes made this demonstrably false claim in the New York Times in March and the Times refused to run a correction.
As far as the "big state" theory is concerned, Obama outperforms Clinton against McCain in the most recent polls in California and New York and, of course, he will win Illinois. Clinton's argument really comes down to her belief that she has a better shot in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. If that's all that matters, why did we bother contesting the rest of the states.
Here are facts:
Obama has won 11 of the 18 contests in states/districts won by John Kerry in 2004 (not including Michigan). Clinton has won seven. Obama's wins: WA, MN, WI, IL, HI, ME, VT, CT, DE, MD, DC. Clinton's wins: CA, NH, MA, RI, NY, NJ, PA. Obama is expected to win one more (OR), and another (MI) seems to be a toss-up.
Essentially, Clinton expects us to believe that Obama will not win Democratic strongholds where he lost primaries (in CA and the northeast), but that she will win Democratic strongholds where she lost primaries (like IL, CT and MD), as well as critical swing states where she lost primaries (like MN, WI and IA).
Even if the super-delegates voice their choices, will that end it? Endorsing a candidate isn't the came thing as voting for them. As far as I know, it isn't possible for a super-delegate to make a binding choice now. Hell, Hillary has pointed out that even pledged delegates might change their minds, so will super-delegates making endorsements make a difference?
From the NYT this morning, Obama is going to focus more and more on McCain, thus (subtly) projecting himself as the Democratic candidate.
He might have been better to do that over the last weekend, rather than get caught in a negative tussle with Clinton. However, would it have changed the result by much?
It can only get better for Obama from here. He has a big win in North Carolina coming up, and a good chance in Indiana (two polls put him ahead).
I apoligize in advance, but...
It's the campaign that never ends
it goes and on and on my friends
Democrats starting running it not knowing what it was
And they'll continue running it forever just because
It's the campaign that never ends
Consider the possibility that while Hillary is desperately hoping that Obama will unexpectedly implode, the superdelegates are afraid that, given his inexperience, he actually might. And there they'll be, facing a candidate they deserted who isn't likely to forget such perfidy. Unless Obama can manage to drive a wooden stake into Hillary's campaign, I wouldn't look for the supers to declare as long as they can possibly put it off. The only conceivable alternative, IMO, would be the safety in numbers if they all collectively declared for Obama simultaneously. The downside, of course, is the putsch like political quality of such a move -- especially if Hillary pulls out a win in Indiana. NC looks like a gimme for Obama -- particularly if Hillary concentrates her resources in Indiana, but I'm not absolutely convinced that couldn't change. Hillary raised a lot of $$$ tonight, so apparently your irritated ennui isn't universal.
I'd also suggest that part of the tedium derives from the fact that the inauguration parties were barely winding down in '04 when the Dems started their engines for campaign '08. The candidates have already been officially debating for over a year. Yawn, indeed. I'd vote for lopping off the front end of the season, not the last lap when it actually gets interesting.
Why is the nomination battle going on for ever? Could it be that there are some (such as myself) who consider Mr. Obama's nomination an unmitigated disaster? Could it be that there is a struggle for the soul of the party (as there was at the beginning of the Republican contest), and many are not willing to hand over the keys to the Democratic party to Mr. Obama without a fight to the end? I do not love Mrs. Clinton, nor swoon over her, yet I contribute money to keep her candidacy alive. She is power hungry, but her hunger for power (and McCain's) is mitigated by her past record of service, and limited by her ideology. I cannot say the same for Mr. Obama, who is the ultimate shape-shifting politician.
Brian really hits the nail on the head. Another point to mention is that a great number of her wins were "homestate" wins. She won the Tri-State area with the institutional backing of all 3 governors. Being the Senator from NY, why would such a result not be expected? And she won her "homestate" AR.
Her most significant wins fought on neutral or enemy territory were NH, MA, CA, RI.
Outside of IL and HI, all of Obama's wins came on neutral turf. Which makes what he has done all the more impressive. And what he did to her in WI, MD & VA was downright embarassing. Those wins matched her biggest wins in NY & AR.
The ABC news report this evening innocently asked "why has Barack Obama been unable to sew up the nomination despite his delegate lead?"
The reason, as ABC demonstrated in putting on the biggest sham of a televised debate in American history last week leading up to this primary, is that the party establishments - both of them - are scared to death of what will happen to them (not America) if Obama wins. Both of the parties (and their rich backers) clearly believe Obama WILL change things, too, and they have put their fears more and more on display the closer Obama gets to the nomination.
The personal greed of Walt Disney's (ABC) executives, and those of other media conglomerates, has hidden the issues that matter behind a pathetic clown show that closely resembles so-called reality TV. If ABC journalists knowingly signed up for this action, shame on them. If not, they need to grab some balls and leave that company, or at least take a PR job with the Clinton or McCain campaigns.
"The reason, as ABC demonstrated in putting on the biggest sham of a televised debate in American history last week leading up to this primary, is that the party establishments - both of them - are scared to death of what will happen to them (not America) if Obama wins."
Oh, if only that were true. But the fact is, Obama is turning out to be far less unconventional than was at first thought. And far less strong.
There are only 3 reasons Clinton stays in this race:
(1) She wants this thing to stay undecided all the way to the convention, so that in the negotiating process for delegates, Obama is forced to select her as V.P. candidate.
(2) She really wants to win the nomination in 2008 by having superdelegates overturn the candidate who won more delegates, more states, more popular vote, raised more money, and brought new people into the party... if this is th case, African-Americans will abandon the party, as well as progressives, the young, and all those new voters. There is no way African-Americans are going to take a candidate who won the pledged delegates to be overturned...
(3)She wants to destroy Obama in 2008 so that McCain wins, so she can challenge him in 2012 wit Obama out of the way.
Where am I wrong????
Wow, I really do not understand the abject fear Obama (or more accurately some caricature of Obama) engenders in certain Clinton supporters. I see no signs of him being the prince of darkness... so get a grip.
Anyways, the big 'problem' as I see it. The Clinton campaign is very close to being dead (may already be a zombie depending on how you look at the numbers). Combine that with her stellar campaign staff (RFs), and a constructive civil tone is not what we are going to see.
Maybe if they won big in PA, they could dial it down (not likely, but one can hope)... but they barely hung on. Any gains from tonight are probably going to vanish in two weeks. Actually, tonight's results are quite a bit below what she planned/needed to have a shot at the popular vote much less the pledge delegate count.
I'm not saying Clinton should drop out, but she (and her campaign and supporters) should at least look at the numbers and declare what scenarios they thing justify her being the nominee. Maybe it is about time to pay off those debts with the fund-raising bump from PA, and dail it down. If Obama self-destructing is their 'theory of victory', sitting back until the convention has as much chance of success as thrashing about wildly (and will piss off a lot less people).
PS: If the tables were turned, I would make the same argument about Obama. Though I don't think the Obama campaign would have taken things to such a pitifully low level desperately trying to hang on in the face of reality.
jab: You are wrong about African-Americans, progressives, et al abandoning the party if Clinton wins by Supers alone. Turnout will probably be suppress somewhat, but a lot of party bigwigs think that this year anyone with a 'D' after their name can win the pres by running against Bush.
Of course, this is a bit silly, since McCain is already running against Bush in the low-information market.
Anyway, the key is that no matter how badly the Dem party screws people in the primary, traditionally Democratic demographics will vote for them in overwhelming numbers. Just like pretty much anyone who still calls themselves a Republican after Bush, Delay, Cunningham, ect will support McCain no matter what.
All that said, there are down-ticket and future elections... and as you can tell from my comment above, I do not approve of the way the Clinton campaign is conducting itself at this point.
It is still arguable whether or not this drawn out primary will be good for the Dems or not in the general. If the Clinton campaign was not in perpetual desperation mode, I would quickly say 'yes'. It most certainly is painful for high-information types on the Dem side who are paying attention.
Would someone please explain how successfully running for elected office at least 4 times over more than a decade is 'untested' or 'inexperienced'. Yeah, all but the last 4 of those years were Illinois state Senate, but Chicago isn't exactly a backwater known for kid-gloves politics.
How many times has Hillary Clinton run for office?
I'm not tying to be an Obama-bot here... Just a reality check.
"She is power hungry, but her hunger for power (and McCain's) is mitigated by her past record of service, and limited by her ideology."
What the hell does any of that mean? Past record of service to WHO? Herself? "Limited by her ideology"? Meaning what - she can do only so much corruption? She isn't owned by AIPAC and prepared to start a war with Iran? She didn't go along with pardoning Marc Rich in exchange for money in order for Bill to thumb his nose at the electorate on his way out the door?
Get a fucking clue.
"I cannot say the same for Mr. Obama, who is the ultimate shape-shifting politician."
And what the hell does that mean? Simply put, it means "He's Malcolm X in disguise! Run!"
It's like Jon Stewart asked him the other night: "Are you going to do a bait-and-switch...and enslave the white race?"
That's about on a par with most of this Obama bashing crap I've heard. At least Stewart wasn't serious.
Yes, he's a fucking politician. That means he lies and he's for sale. Compared to Clinton, however, he has far fewer years of experience doing so. He's also ignorant about foreign policy - almost as bad as Matt is. Still, compared to Clinton, and still more so to McCain, he at least might wait a bit before launching a war on Iran. Maybe he'll wait until the US is out of the current recession before he spikes the oil price that way...
Assuming Bush and Cheney don't do it this year, which is much more likely.
Anybody who can vote for Clinton is a part of the problem that Obama allegedly wants to solve. Of course, he can't - but at least some people believe he should try. I think they're naive, too - but at least they aren't complete idiots who think Clinton is anything but a corrupt power-seeker and war hawk.
At this point, if you're a Clinton backer, you're a moron.
Matt B suggest both candidates agree to just not campaign until the convention.... which is a horrible idea, but I'd offer a variant (which sadly won't happen either):
Both candidates just campaign against McCain (in the appropriate primary states still). Let the votes see what they have got against
They don't want to have to make a public decision. They would rather have the decision made for them. Individually, each risk-averse superdelegate is better off by not declaring because waiting increases the likelihood that he or she will not have to declare and therefore will not have to offend somebody.
Posted by blah | April 22, 2008 9:38 PM