Howard Dean On Super-Delegates: "Their role is to exercise their best judgment"
The Democratic National Committee has given me what appears to be Howard Dean's most extensive and detailed answer to date on the role of super-delegates amid the ongoing battle between Hillary and Obama for their support.
Dean's verdict: "Their role is to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and of the Democratic Party."
Yesterday, I posed a question to the DNC: Does Dean think that the super-dels should support the candidate who ends up with the most pledged dels, or should the super-dels feel free to support whichever candidate they think is best for the party and the nation?
The DNC sent over this answer from Dean, which I'm quoting in full:
Some commentators have misrepresented who the “superdelegates” are and what their role is supposed to be. While it's premature to speculate what will happen as the process continues to unfold given that there are still over 1,000 pledged delegates yet to be selected, let’s look at who Undpledged delegates or "super delegates" are.They are a diverse group of individuals who come from all parts of the country and all walks of life. They are local grassroots activists, county Party chairs, and local elected officials. They include all members of the DNC, all Democratic Members of Congress and all Democratic Governors, and a few former party leaders - all of whom have been elected by the people of their states and districts. Virtually all members of the DNC have been elected by their state party committees or Conventions, who in turn have been elected by grassroots Democratic voters. These members of the DNC have earned their positions by doing the difficult, unglamorous work of building the party organization day in and day out, when nobody is paying attention, year after year.
Their role is to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and of the Democratic Party. I am confident that they will carry out that duty responsibly and in accordance with the highest values of our democracy and our Party.
So, unlike other party leaders, such as Nancy Pelosi and John Lewis, Dean is not calling on the super-dels to follow the pledged dels. He doesn't explicitly endorse the position of either Obama or Hillary -- which is perhaps to be expected, given his position -- but he does say that "their role is to exercise their best judgment."
Late Update: Ben Smith argues that Dean's position "seems closer to Hillary's."
Dean, approving of an undemocratic process of nomination by party insiders that delegitimizes the process. Disappointing...
February 16, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's not endorsing it, just explaining it. And as noted by others below, he's just giving a safe non-answer which is what you'd expect given his need to stay neutral, moreso than those other party leaders. This story really tells us nothing.
February 16, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is the process. Saying othrwise is like saying baseball games should end in the 8th inning.
February 16, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's just saying the super delegates have EARNED the right to use their judgement and vote for whomever they think will make the best candidate. Just like you did when you voted in your primary or caucus. What's disappointing about that?
February 16, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a non-answer answer.
I dont think Dean's position is anyclearer than it was yesterday.
What if one superdelegates "best judgment" is that he should follow the lead of the pledged delegates?
And what if another superdelegates "best judgment" is to do whatever the hell they feel like and go against the will of the electorate?
Dean's answer is a political one with a bunch of wiggle room to negotiate. And it really doesn't clear up the situation at all.
February 16, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dean is saying what Obama himself agrees are the rules governing super delegate voting: in your words, "whatever the hell they feel like". Of course Obama wants them to feel a certain way but his is a moral argument not a legal one.
Do you want Dean inventing party and convention rules willy nilly?
I think most of us share a belief that the process needs changing.
But for this convention those are the party rules.
Rules that Obama has accepted.
And is anyone really surprised that the Democratic Party is not all that democratic?
Haven't you wondered at the hodgepodge of primary and caucus rules, the various methods of allotting elected delegates? It is a system that gives a single Iowa caucus goer the power of what? 100,000 CA primary voters.
And it gives super delegates the deciding votes in a tight race.
If you want a truly democratic party then caucuses must go and every registered Democrat would vote directly for their candidate of choice.
But for now the only ones to blame are the candidates who after all are failing to attain the required number of elected delegates to secure the nomination. Blame Obama.
February 16, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Dean is saying what Obama himself agrees are the rules governing super delegate voting: in your words, "whatever the hell they feel like". Of course Obama wants them to feel a certain way but his is a moral argument not a legal one."
That is all true.
"I think most of us share a belief that the process needs changing."
I agree with that.
"But for this convention those are the party rules.
Rules that Obama has accepted.
And is anyone really surprised that the Democratic Party is not all that democratic?
Haven't you wondered at the hodgepodge of primary and caucus rules, the various methods of allotting elected delegates? "
Texas's delegate selection system could certainly use some simplification.
"If you want a truly democratic party then caucuses must go and every registered Democrat would vote directly for their candidate of choice."
Now that is a conclusion and an opinion that you have not made the case for. Why not eliminate primaries in favor of caucuses?
"But for now the only ones to blame are the candidates who after all are failing to attain the required number of elected delegates to secure the nomination. Blame Obama."
Your post was fine and there was little there to argue with until the last two words. Aren't there two candidates failing to attain the required number of elected delegates to secure the nomination? I guess there might be a perverted sort of logic to that if you blame Obama for preventing Hillary from getting her required number of delegates and also blame Obama for not earning the number of delegates he needs. Why didn't it occur to me that Hillary is in no way responsible for her own performance?
February 16, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Barbara.
The reason to eliminate caucuses is because they are manifestly undemocratic. Just hours of operation to begin with, lack of secret ballot, they are run by partisan apparatchiks, well it goes on and on. But I don't favor state primaries either woth their disparate rules for delegate apportionment. I think there should be a single national primary with a run off vote should no one emerge with a clear majority. Just like the elected mayor in most towns.
And I certainly did not mean to put a greater onus on Obama; I led with "blame the candidates" plural and then added the "Blame Obama" only because I was addressing an Obama fan.
My apologies for being unclear or seeming to be unfair.
February 16, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
...go against the will of the electorate...
Do you mean the 'will of the electorate' sans Florida and Michigan? Sans voters that are unable to make it to the caucuses?
Obama has more votes and more delegates at this point ignoring Fla and Mich. That shouldn't be confused with 'the will of the electorate'.
February 16, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weird logic - "in the interests of the country and the party" is the same as "do whatever the hell you want to"?
While someone may decide what's best is to go along with popular vote, "interests of the country and the party" doesn't much reference the candidate him/herself does it?
March 9, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, unlike other party leaders, such as Nancy Pelosi and John Lewis, Dean is not calling on the super-dels to follow the pledged dels.
Well, no, not exactly. He's not calling on them to do any particular thing, but he is outlining the standards by which they should decide. And he is certainly not saying anything that is inconsistent with what Pelosi and so many others are saying about ratifying the voters' choice.
It is entirely within the scope of the "best judgment" argument he's making to suggest that superdelegates ought to act, collectively, to endorse the decision of voters by supporting that candidate who has received the most pledged delegates.
That Dean hasn't explicitly called for them to do just that doesn't mean he opposes it. It's just a function of his position to outline the basic principles on which superdelegates should operate.
February 16, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we shouldn't forget that this is the same party that believed the "highest values of our democracy and our Party" called for setting up cages to hold those who wished nothing more than to peaceably assemble at their last convention!
February 16, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well sure, that's what he says to you (and us). The question is what he actually says to the supers when we get close to convention time and the knives are coming our.
February 16, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the full quote should be considered.
"Their role is to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and of the Democratic Party."
I think Josh's video commentary of a couple days ago was right on the mark.
The supers will vote for the candidate who has demonstrated the greatest likelihood of winning the general election with the longest coattails.
Those so called "party insiders", as Dean explained, include (more than half) local party officials from throughout the state they represent. They will certainly want to do what will what they believe most helps their down ticket candidates.
February 16, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I saw something completely different in his answer than what's been put forth so far. He's saying the DNC has given people who have worked hard for the party over the years a great deal of power to decide a nomination process basically as a reward for service. Which is not a bad proposition I guess...bet the DNC never thought they would have THIS much power...hehe. I sincerely hope they don't fracture the party by going for someone with less pledged delegates.
February 16, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The constant harping about the superdelegate 'issue' has become tiresome, particularly from those who apparently have no clue as to why such rules exist, or the intended role they play in the candidate selection process.
Enough already with this 'thwarting the will of the people' argument and call this 'undemocratic.'
There is no basis for such claims. Party rules are written by active, participating members of the party - not 'the people' at large. The process of capturing delegates is unfortunately not left solely to members of the Democratic party, but to large, otherwise not involved members of the electorate, including independent, non-party affiliated voters and crossover members of the Republican party, where open primaries exist. To virtually anyone who wants to caucus, in some cases, where caucuses exist.
To claim that the superdelegate rules (or other party rules) interfere with the will of the people at large, is naive and factually incorrect.
Governor Dean's matter-of-fact recitation indicates that the process should play out according to 'the rules' and he draws no forgone conclusion as to the final selection of a candidate.
It comes down to this for future contests: if you don't like the rules, get involved in your local party apparatus and work to change the rules. Or, simply shut up about them. Enough already.
February 16, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
But the "people" ARE the party, just because you have access and work with the nuts and bolts of the party apparatchik(sp?) doesn't mean one should be given a "veto" of a large swath of less active party members when it comes to voting on a representative of the party. These people make success a reality and there should be rewards for their service, but this isn't the way to do it.
Now I agree to complain about this now is moot, this is the process and we knew it for awhile now. We should deal with it as it is and move to change the system in 2009 if we so wish.
February 16, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, "the people" are NOT "the party". A political party is a private organization, free to set up its own rules. Political parties are NOT accountable to "the people" or even to "the government"; they are accountable only to their own members. As Dean's statement noted, the superdelegates ARE, in fact, elected: some by the voters in states and congressional districts, and some (like Dean himself) by the members of the party.
All this talk about "disenfranchisement" and superdelegates is really tiresome to read, because most of the people commenting obviously don't know the rules. And no, I'm not a Clinton supporter hawking this argument because I think it benefits her candidacy. Superdelegates (as a class) are professionals, looking at presidential nominees with jaundiced eyes and asking themselves one question: who's a winner? They turn their eyes to Clinton and they see a machine candidate with a narrow base of support. Then they turn to Obama and see a guy who has brought millions of new voters into the process, raised more money than any prior presidential candidate, and built a truly nationwide political organization (which, incidentally, is superior to many of the state party organizations). Further, about half the superdelegates are DNC members, who we can safely assume are loyal to Dean and view Clinton (rightly) as a serious threat to his 50-state strategy, which has done much to revive their state and local party organizations.
The handwriting on the wall is pretty clear for those jaundiced eyes — they know how to read polls. If Obama finishes the primary race in the same or better position than he is now, I don't think for one moment that the superdelegates would risk the anger of their base or risk losing the general election by insisting upon the weaker general election candidate. The professional pols have every reason to prefer Obama, which is why Ted Kennedy (for example) endorsed him.
February 17, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're missing the point Michael.
No one is arguing that we should break the rules and throw out the superdelegates in this election.
What people are arguing about is how to define what it means for the superdelegates to "exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and of the Democratic Party".
It's about making the argument that its in the interest of the Democratic Party to have a unified party going into the general election. If our nominee ends up being a candidate who didn't win the pledged delegate total, but won because they had the support of party insiders, there will be a very big uproar and we won't be unified. Having the Superdelegates agree to vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates is a way to avoid that division. And it's completely within the rules.
February 16, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
And what if the popular vote goes to one candidate, but the "pledged delegate" vote goes to another? This actually strikes me as a very plausible outcome, based on current polling and the populations of the remaining states. If current polling can be taken as a good estimate of voting outcome, I'd guess that Hillary will be by an appreciable margin the popular vote winner. Yet, by the arcane and artificial rules of pledged delegate selection, it's very likely going to be Obama who's nonetheless ahead in pledged delegate count. (These rules are so artificial that some people have calculated that if Hillary were to win the popular vote in TX by even 8%, she could still LOSE the pledged delegate count.)
Maybe one candidate will, by ALL measures of the "popular will" come out ahead. But if on different measures different candidates win, it's going to be legitimately up to the judgment of the superdelegates to choose which index counts for them.
February 16, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to the United States. For those of you who think we are a democracy, think again. We are a Constitutional Republic. We do not elect our president directly. we do not elect federal judges. we do not elect cabinet members.
so does it come as any real surprise that one of our two major parties does not want to leave everything in the hands of the people? No. What if our leading candidate for the presidency had an unfortunate accident and/or was killed? and we had a second place finisher who the party knew could not help us in a general election? without the support of SDs, this person would not get the nomination. it would be a round 2 floor vote, and i assume the SDs would select someone who COULD help the party from top to bottom in every state.
February 16, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see why many of them deserve a reward for service. Are they so out of touch with the mood in America that they believe anybody left, right or center believes the status quo deserves a reward!
At least they keep me young at heart. I feel just like I did in 1968.
February 16, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think he is basically they shouldn't override the popular vote, "I am confident that they will carry out that duty responsibly and in accordance with the highest values of our democracy and our Party." The values of our democracy would seem to indicate not overriding democracy, and the best interests of our party would be to not override democracy because the fallout from that will tear the party to pieces.
He is speaking diplomatically, but I think that is what he is getting at.
February 16, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
One Super Delegate in Wisconsin is only twenty five years old, so how can he be considered one of the party elders.
Chelsey Clinton took him out for coffee, on her visit to Wisconsin, so you can see, it this particular case, you have someone who does not fit the profile of a super delegate, that we have been led to believe.
February 16, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The supers will vote for the candidate who has demonstrated the greatest likelihood of winning the general election with the longest coattails."
This sounds right. I think Dean would like to maintain the flexibility for the super delegates to take a contrary view if the candidate with the most pledged delegates is suddenly enmeshed in scandal or has a severe drop in the polls v. the Republican candidate.
But if this race continues on its current trajectory, with Obama maintaining a lead in pledged delegates and running best against McCain, no one can say with a straight face that nominating Clinton would be in the best interest of the Party.
February 16, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand why this issue keeps cropping up. People act as if Hillary has an iron grip on the super delegates. Look, if Obama wins on Tuesday, then wins one of the big remaining three and is at least very close in the other two, there is no way the super delegates will vote Hillary in.
It's a very smart tactic by the Clinton campaign to keep Florida, Michigan, and Super Delegates in the headlines. The fact that people are concerned about it helps reinforce an underlying assumption that she has full control of and great power in the democratic party, and it helps distract from the fact that she's gotten her butt whipped in the last 8 races.
It's all much ado about nothing until we go through Ohio and Texas. If Clinton wins those decisively, than we can worry about super delegates, florida, and michigan. If she gets trounced, then those issues completely disappear, and the super delegates will move overwhelmingly toward obama. These aren't Clinton or Obama robots we're talking about. These are motivated Democrats. And they can see what's happening just like anyone else. If Obama keeps winning, they'll move towards him. If he loses, they'll move away. Simple as that.
February 16, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded, thanks.
February 16, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
A voice of reason but that won't stop those who insist on having their shorts in a knot.
February 16, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Their best judgment should include giving substantial weight to the preferences of the rank and file Dems both in their state and in the nation as a whole. Any superdelegate who fails to understand that overturning the clearly, if narrowly, expressed preference of the voters is potentially destructive of party unity.
If it is really too close to call, fine exercise your best judgment, but if Obama is up by more than 50 pledged delegates, they should be very circumspect about overturning the will of the voters. If this is the only way HRC can win, it will not be worth having. Turnout will be depressed among the young and the AA community, and McCain will walk into the White House.
February 16, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
yes, if it is close but with obama having a lead in pledged delegates and the supers hand it to clinton, expect to see mccain win every state (except washington dc) in november. why? bc many obama supporters are young people getting involved for the first time who will walk right out and never turn back. these people will feel like they have been walked over, and the democratic party will lose a strong base of support and volunteers. howard dean knows this.
February 16, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
bc many obama supporters are young people getting involved for the first time who will walk right out and never turn back.
That's the feeling I get as well. As I read about 'all the new voters Obama has brought into the process', I find myself wishing that he'd brought a few more adults into the party rather than spoiled kids that say they walk if their guy doesn't get the nomination.
February 17, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This news really doesn't change anything. These people, with their concern for the overall welfare of the Party, understand the signs as well as anybody. They will not defy the will of the people as it becomes daily more clear, nor will they ignore the polls about electability. And they certainly will have heavily in mind the local candidates who will need the coattails of a popular candidate.
I used to fear that Clinton would steamroll, even by unethical means if necessary, over these superdelegates relying on the fear of her power. But, as in the case of many once-dreaded leaders (see Italy in the '40s or Rumania in the '80s), the moment the erstwhile underlings see a chance to escape the strong one's sway it's all over. I think that's what will happen if Hillary Clinton tries her jawboning ways that used to work so well when her husband's dominance was unchallenged.
February 16, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Off topic, but did you see where John McCain is calling out the "people's candidate" on his pandering lie re public financing.
Well, it's not exactly a lie yet. It's still in the "hedging our bets bigtime" category.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080216/ap_on_el_pr/mccain
February 16, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course John needs to shift attention away from his vote against banning torture, a practice he was against before he was for it (now that he needs the conservative base). A good way to do it is to drag out this fundraising thing even before either himself or Obama has been nominated. Which does not mean that Obama does not have a problem here. It is not an ethics problem, but it could make him look like not a man of his words. Yet, it may all be flack. We still don't know what really happened, and no documented pledge has been produced.
On the other hand John has a real ethics problem with his newfound infatuation with torture.
February 16, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
An interesting tidbit from Novakula's column:
The endorsement of Obama Wednesday by Puerto Rico Gov. Anibal Acevedo Vila gives him a big edge in the island commonwealth's primary June 7, despite a predominant Hispanic population, with 63 delegates at stake. The governor will put the Popular Democratic Party, Puerto Rico's most powerful political force, at Obama's disposal.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/hillarys_mcgovern_problem.html
February 16, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting, I hadn't read this. As I keep posting, the nomination race is over anyway, Obama won it Tuesday, it's nice to have more indicia of Hillary's demise.
Hillary has to get those Supers somehow, she can't win the pledged delegates. What can she offer them that Obama can't beat? Money, he has more. GE chances, Obama polls better. Down ballot support, especially in Red states, Dems don't want a galvanized GOP Hillary is sure to provide. Promises, Obama is starting a new administration, Hillary has all the old people and promises to take care of. Black delegates, Obama is bringing them out in record numbers much better for them than Hillary (and supporting Hillary could actually hurt them amongst their electorate). Progressive districts, Obama brings out the youth vote and activists.
The nomination is over with. Time to figure out who Obama should pick for VP. Webb seems the prohibitive favorite.
February 16, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think about this hypothetical situation.
What if Hillary does the improbable: she wins TX, OH and PA narrowly by smearing the crap out of Obama and then strong-arms the credentials committee into seating MI and FL?
But polling shows Obama is more popular with Democrats (and most have a negative view of her) and that he beats McCain while Hillary loses to McCain.
I think the SDs should do whatever is in the best interests of the party.
February 16, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you suggesting that polling results, not actual counted votes, should determine the Dem nominee?
February 16, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm suggesting that it's premature to assume the SDs only help Clinton while overruling popular support of Obama.
They're there to avert disasters like the hypothetical situation I outlined.
February 16, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes and this may be why the Obama campaign hasn't been explicity endorsing the idea that the superdelegates should support whoever wins the most pledged delegates.
But I think it's unlikely that the credentials committee, no matter how stacked it is with Hillary supporters, will seat the MI and/or FL delegates if those delegates will change the result of the pledged delegate winner.
What the Obama campaign should do is offer to pick up the bill for the half the cost of a new caucus in MI and FL. This will give them no excuse but to hold a re-vote.
February 16, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Florida already voted in a primary.
The odds of holding a caucus here are less than zero if only because it would require the agreement of a gazillion different interested parties.
And just think what fun the Republicans will have with the "Do Over Party".
Will you trust your security to a party that can't even get a primary election done right?
And if that weren't bad enough this is also caught up in the determination by many states to end the Iowa New Hampshire primacy.
It's always bloody splitting the baby.
February 16, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny how you insist on the idea that a caucus should be allowed to overturn the results of an actual election.
Maybe it's because you know perfectly well that caucuses favor your candidate immensely, and the gold standard for democracy, the secret ballot at the familiar and standard polling stations, does not?
But, if Obama needs such an unfair leg up, why should we take the results of ANY caucuses seriously?
February 16, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama endorsed by Milwaukee, Houston papers
by John McCormick
WAUSAU, Wis. -- Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama has won the endorsement of the largest newspaper in Wisconsin just ahead of the state's primary on Tuesday.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel said there is only the "tiniest sliver of daylight" between policy positions held by Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.
But the newspaper's editorial board, which met with the senator from Illinois on Wednesday, said it found Obama to be the "best-equipped to deliver" change and that "his relatively shorter time in Washington is more asset than handicap."
Obama has also won the endorsement of the Houston Chronicle, one of the nation's largest newspapers and one in a state where Obama will campaign next week, in advance of the Texas primary on March 4.
The newspaper said "Obama is both the epitome of the American Dream and well-positioned to reach out to an international community alienated by recent U.S. go-it-alone policies."
The endorsements came on a day where Obama is campaigning in Wisconsin, including a stop at this hour at a community college here where he is meeting with a small group of students to discuss the issues they face.
February 16, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
oothoon, if she wins TX, OH, and PA by large margins through smearing the crap out of Obama, then the Democratic party deserves her, and she should win the nomination.
If those three states don't have the stones to choose Obama, then, well, you reap what you sow.
February 16, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't wait to post March, and the candidate for change takes Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.
I just want to see the reaction of the Clintons by then, will they be humbled, or will they explode into outright madness on everybody.
"Take Her Out... End All Doubt"
February 16, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama wins Texas and Ohio the Clintons will then claim that since those states alway vote Red in presidential elections they do not matter, just like they claim that any of the other Red States Victories by Obama do not matter.
Only Red and Blue States where Hillary wins should count. That is what the Clintons keep telling us.
February 16, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The constant harping about the superdelegate 'issue' has become tiresome, particularly from those who apparently have no clue as to why such rules exist, or the intended role they play in the candidate selection process."
"Enough already with this 'thwarting the will of the people' argument and call this 'undemocratic.'"
Well, I can still recall the 1968 chants: "The whole world is watching" when the Democratic Party decided that it could act independently of the will of its customers. We know what happened. For the only time in my long voting history, I did not vote for a Democrat for president. (I didn't vote for Nixon either.) That was the start of a long run by Republicans (except for the Nixon-caused, one-term Carter presidency). Fixing a party long term is more important in some minds than the next four years.
Any organization that pisses off a sufficient number of its customers -- in this case "the people" -- will not prosper. And by the way, the whole world is once again watching, and hoping.
February 16, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes Dean is merely restating what the role of super-delegates was in the first place. it's not only a non-answer, it's not news.
February 16, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
"What if Hillary does the improbable: she wins TX, OH and PA narrowly by smearing the crap out of Obama and then strong-arms the credentials committee into seating MI and FL?"
She very well could do this. Not hypothetical at all. Indeed, it is a looming trainwreck ready to occur.
February 16, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The super delegates are a crap system.
And to make these clowns 20% of the vote?
Totally stupid and crazy.
February 16, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
You must be a Republican. Elected Democrats are simply not "clowns"--and that's who the majority of the super delegates are.
February 16, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign announced the names of 23 new endorsers including State Treasurer Dawn Marie Sass, State Senators Tim Carpenter, Jeff Plale and Jim Sullivan and the first woman mayor of Wausau, Linda Lawrence....Go Wisconsin:)
February 16, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary's "McGovern" Problem
By Robert Novak
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Strategists for Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign believe it is imperative to identify her high-flying opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, with the "McGovern wing" of the Democratic Party -- but they want to keep their candidate's fingerprints off the attack.
During the two weeks remaining before the important Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4, Clinton insiders want to spread the message that Obama represents the radical left-wing politics of George McGovern's 1972 candidacy, which won only one state. But they don't know how to accomplish this. When Clinton herself has launched past attacks on Obama, it has hurt her with voters.... "
I feel like I have been fighting this fight since 1968 and it's hugely depressing to find the party establishment in the same place it was in 40 years ago and with not much to show for the last 40 years either.
February 16, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
The trouble is that McGovern (Kucinich) has been sent packing already. Hillary's problem is she seems all to much like Mondale.
February 16, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
February 16, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama can't win a substantial portion of the blue collar Democrats in Ohio and PA, then he will have the same problem in the general election as did Carter and Mondale, namely, the so-called Reagan Democrat are likely to desert him in the general.
There's a lot about McCain that might be suggestive of Reagan to blue collar democrats: his perceived "strength" on national security matters being one of them, his conservatism on social issues being another. If anything, he should present fewer obstacles than did Reagan, because he is perceived as more "moderate", fairly or not. McCain has already tipped his hand about seeking to portray Obama as a, well, "effete liberal" -- he's brought up the fact that Obama was ranked the most liberal Senator in Congress by a major publication.
I'd expect that we'd find a lot of "McCain Democrats" in Ohio and PA and elsewhere across the US if Obama runs against him.
February 16, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
One big problem with the comparison: Reagan was senile towards the end of his reign, McCain starts out behind the eight ball.
February 16, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a practical matter, Dean's statement doesn't make any difference. And I, too, am getting sick of manufactured controversies.
IF Barack Obama ends up with a lead in pledged delegates (let's not count our chickens before they're hatched), and IF the super-delegates got behind Hillary Clinton instead (which is completely unbelievable), this would tear apart the Democratic Party. It would absolutely guarantee a Republican win in November - and not just in the presidential contest, either. It would be absolutely devastating.
But don't you think the super-delegates know that? Come on! I don't see any chance of it happening. Sure, we Democrats are really good at shooting ourselves in the foot, but this would set a new low. One way or another, it's not going to happen. This is just manufactured news, a manufactured controversy. TPM should be better than this.
February 16, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was Larry Sabato of UVA who said the SD's (and I am paraphrasing) will do whatever is in their own pure political self-interest. I think he's right. (If I'm wrong about the source, apologies in advance, but the point is valid). And one thing that the SD's can't afford to do is back a candidate that has the possibility of imploding in November, when there is no exit strategy. It is emphatically not in their pure self-interest to be embarrassed by a November Surprise. There are several commentators calling for greater vetting of Sen. Obama, the most well known of whom is Amb. Joe Wilson. There is also Larry C. Johnson making the same point. The majority of the SD's will stay on the sidelines until the primaries run their course, and there has at least been a better chance to address the kinds of issues raised by Messrs. Wilson and Johnson.
February 16, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good for Dean. That is precisely the right answer. The Super Delegates should exercise their own best judgment and the rest of us should take a deep breath and realize that these folks' interests are largely the same as the interests of the broad mass of democratic voters - they want a dem president. They are not going to do anything to torpedo our chances.
February 16, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
What did Joe Wilson find the missing WMD in Obama's basement or something?
February 16, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richmond,
Joe Wilson is a slimy hack, and Larry Johnson off his meds. Your candidate is desparate and without scruples. The only November surprise will be that we prove ourselves a better country by electing Obama.
The voters are telling the party they don't want the Clinton road show back in office and the Supers will fall in line. Lets win Wisconsin.
Obama '08
February 16, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
bdn: No need for personal attacks.
In all candor, you might be right about Sen. Obama. But you might be wrong. It doesn't matter if you are wrong. The SD's can't afford to be wrong.
February 16, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blue: Read the article.
Ambassador Joe Wilson: “How will Mr. Obama respond to charges made by the Kenyan government that his campaigning activities in Kenya in support of his distant cousin running for president there made him "a stooge" and constituted interference in the politics of an important and besieged ally in the war on terror?”
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.hillary12feb12,0,7566890,print.story
February 16, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kenya is an important ally in the war on terror?
Can you tell me how many troops they've sent to afghanistan? Can you tell me how many terror threats they've helped exposed? Can you tell me if they have ever passed along any goodinformation regarding terrorist threats?
Have they actually DONE anything to prove themselves an "important" ally, other than call themselves an important ally?
to be sure, we need all the allies we can get, but lets face it, some allies are more important than others.
Like Poland. With their 1 soldier that they sent to Iraq but have since pulled out.
February 16, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"How will he answer charges that his desire for unstructured personal summits without preconditions with a host of America's adversaries, from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Kim Jong Il, would be little more than premature capitulation?"
because merely talking to someone doesnt mean capitulating to them. i thought that was obvious.
"How will Mr. Obama answer Mr. McCain about his careless remark about unilaterally bombing Pakistan - perhaps blowing up an already difficult relationship with a nuclear state threatened by Islamic extremists?"
well...it wasnt careless it was well thought out and, i think a rationale position. Does McCain really wanna be the one who says we SHOULDNT hit Osama bin Laden if we know where he is and pakistan wont take him out?
"But will Mr. Obama fight? His brief time on the national scene gives little comfort. Consider a February 2006 exchange of letters with Mr. McCain on the subject of ethics reform. The wrathful Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of being "disingenuous," to which Mr. Obama meekly replied, "The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you."
Well this is Obama's style and appeal. He doesnt resort to personal attacks or demonizing people he disagrees with. If Wilson wants somebody who does, than he is right in supporting Hillary. But America is tired of all that.
February 16, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably he won't answer, but if he does. His cousin is the guy who won the election Kibaki is Bush's friend. Kibaki's whole gov't was basically shown the door, but somehow, Kibaki himself won? That's why the people took to the streets. Obama looks good opposing Kibaki.
February 16, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The super delegates are by definition political. Many are self interested and will stampede fast to whichever side seems inevitable for the nomination.
By all accounts, Hillary's enforcers told party establishment types early it was "now or never" in terms of their support, political and financial. Many, assuming that the Clinton Machine could never be defeated in the primary, took the position of sheep and lined up. Increasingly, however, they look like lemmings as every new Hillary re-invention falls flat, and the "Bill in the China Shop" routine backfires.
But the same self interest that guided coereced early pledges to Hillary will end them as soon at Obama seem inevitable. With polls and endorsements in Texas trending his way, it won't be long.
Hillary better put her super delegates in solitary confinment while she still has some.
February 16, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Well, there he goes again"
Bill Clinton is now talking up what He and Hillary accomplished as Co Presidents. Just last week, Hillary was claiming that she was running on her own. Which is it!
Read the latest from Big Foot Bill. God help anyone who would take the VP slot behind the Clinton Two pack.
NACOGDOCHES, Texas (AP) — Former President Clinton on Friday accused Sen. Barack Obama, his wife's rival for the Democratic nomination, of trying to ignore any accomplishments they achieved during their years in the White House.
"You have one candidate who's made the explicit argument that the only way we can change America is to move into a post-partisan future and therefore we have to eliminate from consideration for the presidency anybody who made good things happen in the '90s or stopped bad things from happening in this decade," said Clinton, who was winding up a day of East Texas campaign appearances for his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"It doesn't matter how much good you did," the former president said at Stephen F. Austin University. "We've got to get rid of you because you had to fight to make something good happen. You had to fight to stop something bad from happening. And if you fought, you made somebody mad, we ought to give you an old watch and retire you. You can't possibly make a contribution to America's future."
February 16, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Howard - this is why I supported you four years ago. Clear, independent thinking.
February 16, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richmond:
Nice column by Wilson. I think he's pretty much nailed every single Clinton talking point while misrepresenting Obama's comments. Talk about echoing right wing talking points!
And that sentence about Obama and Kenya is almost incomprehensible. He should have just written "Obama, by going to Kenya, is jeopardizing our war on terror". That's the point he's really trying to make--so why not just make it?
February 16, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can one dare speculate that Wilson is interested in being a key player in a Clinton Administration?
February 16, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lots of ifs being pondered here. Are we really going to keep reading the minds of the almighty superdelegates for the next 6 months? If so, I might just gouge my eyes out. Everything insiders (like Dean) say is simply p.r. or damage control or status quo b.s. Everything Hillary and Barack say serves to benefit them. Of course! That's the game. Same as it ever was.
bluebell, if you want to keep from getting depressed, don't read Robert Novak. ; )
February 16, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Howard. This is why I supported you four years ago. Clear, independent thinking.
February 16, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richmond,
"Nobody dislikes such poisonous partisanship, especially in foreign policy, more than I do...."
I always thought that Wilson was a sleaze, never could get past that however much I despised the Cheney/Libby operation. So Obama has an African cousin, who knew! And in a country associated with terror no less! I'm so glad the Clinton machine points that out. And they were so good at resolving all those potential terror problems in Africa when they had the chance!!
February 16, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't get this debate. Dean's explanation of the rules is just that, and beyond the rules, suggestions about how superdelegates should arrive at their votes are pointless in terms of giving US more clarity. According to the rules the superdelegates can exercise their own "best judgment" and vote how they choose. In the best interests of holding the party together it would be wise for them to break in favor of the nominee who has the most votes and pledged delegates. In the interests of reelection, it would be wise for each delegate who is an elected official to reflect the will of his or her constituents if they made a clear choice. But they can do whatever they decide for whatever reason. This is what makes the "backroom" deals allegations completely legitimate. Hopefully the superdelegates are above that, but there's nothing in the rules to prevent that possibility.
The combination of proportional delegates and superdelegates is a blend that could explode the party if they break two different directions, and that's something the party needs to consider for future elections. There's nothing to do but ride it out, now, and suggestions by party leaders might influence how superdelegates vote, but no one will know until we get there.
February 16, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is the TPM system finally working? I sent a message without trying 4 times.
February 16, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does Joe Wilson know that Hillary voted for the Iraq War and still claims that her vote was correct. Since she and John McCain agree on that, why will she stand up to him.
Bill Clinton recently revealed that Hillary is great friends with John McCain and greatly admires and respects him, and that an election between Hillary and McCain would be one of the most respectful one's in history.
Which is it Joe. Your word that Hillary will go toe to toe with John McCain. or her husband's word that she and John McCain would have a love in campaign.
February 16, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The key to Dean's statement is "highest values" of the Democratic Party. That's how you agree with Obama tacitly while staying nominally neutral.
Any role Dean plays in the superdelegate mess will be behind closed doors.
February 16, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
On Feb. 15, 2008 the Clinton campaign announced 23 new endorsers:
Dawn Marie Sass, State Treasurer (Milwaukee)
Tim Carpenter, State Senator, SD 3 (Milwaukee)
Jeff Plale, State Senator, SD 7 (Milwaukee)
Jim Sullivan, State Senator, SD 5 (Wauwatosa)
Charles Benedict, State Representative, AD 45 (Beloit)
Barbara Gronemus, State Representative, AD 91 (Whitehall)
Marina Dimitrijevic, County Supervisor (Milwaukee)
Brett Hulsey, County Supervisor (Madison)
Lauren Cnare, City Council Member (Madison)
Larry McDonald, Mayor (Bayfield)
Raymond DeHahn, City Council (Racine)
Patty Hoeft, County Supervisor (Oneida)
Dotty Juengst, School Board Member (Green Bay)
Louise Principe, Register of Deeds (Pleasant Prairie)
Jennifer Jackson, County Supervisor (Pleasant Prairie)
Margaret Wood, County Supervisor (La Crosse)
Maureen Freedland, County Supervisor (La Crosse)
Vicki Burke, County Supervisor (Onalaska)
Leon Pfaff, County Supervisor (Holmen)
Mary Kinnunen, Former Mayor (Rhinelander)
Linda Lawrence, Former Mayor (Wausau)
Charlotte Foth, Former City Council Member (Menasha)
Lydia Spottswood, Former City Council Member (Kenosha)
February 16, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's good that she has all these people endorsing her, because this:
just appeared on the on-line Milwaukee Journal.Perhaps this list of people will campaign in her absence?
February 16, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other news, 2,100 young voters just registered to vote in Madison.
Each of these little league endorsement gets Hillary just that: 1 vote on Tuesday. She's already pulled the plug.
February 16, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
She could win WI and it still doesn't change that she can't win the pledged delegate race. And, he's going to win WI handily. I don't know where they're polling but WI is the center of US Progressivism. Minnesota should have made it clear she can't win. A substantial Obama win is likely, while her best shot is a narrow victory.
Again. The nomination is over. Obama is the nominee. It's going to take most of the MSM another week to figure it out and they won't really shout it from thr roof tops unless he can win in TX or OH. Hillary's only shot is to win in landslides in TX, OH, and PA.
February 16, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
My fear is that using their best judgement will not include factoring in the consequences of what they choose to do. If, in the best judgement of someone, Hillary is more ready to be president, but also less likely to win, and far less likely to bring a workable legislative majority with her to enact significant changes, their logic will dictate---uhh--that krap hillary has been peddling about being ready on day one sounds pretty good. I'll go with that.
February 16, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well all we unprogrammed Americans can do is hope these Super Delegates haven't been mesmerized by this cult like mass hypnotism of Obama followers that has even Chris Mathews voting with his feelings rather than his head!
What was it he said? He felt a "shiver run up his leg"?
LOL Yeah, that's a good reason to vote somebody president of U.S. ! That'll help us out a lot. We can all get the shivers together! And pay big bucks for it while Obama spends our tax dollars and maybe military in Kenya's civil war.
I think the last time a public speaker affected the masses in such a way was back in Germany wasn't it? Those young people were just mesmerized by that guy too.
Rae
February 16, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is really offensive and overwrought.
February 16, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, take offense if you want, but its true. It was the German YOUTH that put him in power. It wasn't the more level headed, un-emotional mature adults, experience & intelligent ADULTS !
If you doubt that, I suggest you read up on German history! But then Obama supporters don't like facts so I'm sure you won't bother. You'd rather enjoy those shivers he gives you.
Rae
February 16, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a great validity to the observation that, no matter your ideology, as soon as you must resort to Argument By Hitler then you have pretty much ceded all ground upon which to stand.
February 16, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're an idiot. And Hitler gained power through a coalition of industrialists...moron.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/burns.htm
Here's just one link after a one friggin' search to destroy your claim...man, you're such a douchebag.
February 17, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow.
I guess this means that Wisconsin is a slam dunk for Clinton.
February 16, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben Smith didn't argue anything.
He made an unjustified statement, which just reflects his bias more than anything else.
February 16, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone have a copy of the convention voting rules that delegates must abide by. For example; when can delegates that Edwards, Richardson, etc won, switch their votes to either Hillary or Obama?.
February 16, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not happy that she is leaving monday morning...is she trying to lose wisconsin.... i don't understand why she would leave... she needs to camapigan hard in wisconsin from today all the way to tuesday.... why leave when the polls are so close and she recieved 23 endorments... :(:( if she lose wisconsin i blame her.:(
February 16, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not happy that she is leaving monday morning...is she trying to lose wisconsin.... i don't understand why she would leave... she needs to camapigan hard in wisconsin from today all the way to tuesday.... why leave when the polls are so close and she recieved 23 endorments... :(:( if she lose wisconsin i blame her.:(
February 16, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
>I think the last time a public speaker affected the masses in such a way was back in Germany wasn't it? Those young people were just mesmerized by that guy too.
Raeka, this is really, truly uncalled for. You've managed to trivialize one of the most truly evil people in history all to score political points. It's fine you are for Hillary and don't understand the appeal of Obama, but please refrain from such horrific idiocy. It is truly shameful, and you owe us all an apology.
I seriously doubt most Hillary supporters want their fellows making Hitler references.
I love that Obama supporters are a programmed cult, but we have several Hillary supporters here making Hitler references. Now that is reasonable.
February 16, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may not like the analogy but its true nevertheless. People are voting for him based on his ability to move them, based on emotion, not substance. They don't even look further.
I stand by the statement. It has merit and deserves attention.
Would you prefer a Jim Jones analogy instead because I think you're all drinking the Koolaid.
Rae
February 16, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your flamebait-style claim is has no merit and no basis in fact whatsoever. By 1938 Hitler had huge support among Germans of all ages including most of those who had voted against him in 1933. Some claim his support reached to 90% of the population, and in fact it was the older adults who were motivated by his strong stance against the Treaty of Versailles as well as promises to restore German pride of the old days.
February 16, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think these two thoughts on how super delegates are to operate are at odds with eachother. The best interests of the nation are typically the will of the people. But at the same time a delegate should chose a nominee who can help get more democrats elected. I can think of only one nominee who has the most votes, and whose presence and message will aid democrat victories in the future. I can think of another nominee who is slightly behind, and who will cause us to lose a record number of democratic seats (like her husband).
February 16, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
wah wah wah cry baby Obamians ...
Can't you just be happy that the democrats will be taking power and will have the strongest ticket they've had since Clinton / Gore in 1992?
Clinton / Obama - 2008
Obama / ? - 2012
16 years of peace and prosperity!
February 16, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Late Update: Greg Sargent links to Ben Smith who links to Greg Sargent.
Lame.
February 16, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The oft-repeated meme of the Clinton camp that she has been vetted and he has not is total crap:
1) The Clintons have a well deserved reputation for some of the most thorough and ruthless "opposition research." If there was some big skeleton stashed in Obama's closet, you can bet we would have heard about it. Instead we have had months of innuendo;
2) The Repubs have enough dirt on Clinton to plant a bumper crop of smears. Obama and Edwards are both too decent to remind the voters of all the old dirt or to spend much energy digging for new dirt. The Rethugs will have no such scruples;
3) The inevitable Repubs smears are much more likely to stick to HRC than to Clinton. Smears are most effective when voters have preexisting doubts about the candidate. A solid majority of voters have significant doubts about HRC's authenticity, honesty, and integrity. On the other hand, a solid majority believe Obama is basically honest. Bottom line she would be the anti-Teflon candidate, while Obama would be a much more difficult target for the Repubs to hit and stick.
February 16, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
On Feb. 15, 2008 the Clinton campaign announced 23 new endorsers:
...
Lydia Spottswood, Former City Council Member (Kenosha)
Uh oh. Obama's failed to obtain the endorsement of Kenosha's political titan, the great Lydia Spottswood??? He may as well give up on Wisconsin....
Seriously, both candidates receive scores of endorsements in every state they go into. The ones that make a difference (if they make a difference at all) are the big ones like unions, governor, major newspapers, etc.
February 16, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can Hillary possibly win the General Election, even if she gets all the Supers? She cannot win without the Independent vote and the African American vote combined. The Independents will vote for McCain and the Blacks will probably not vote at all. I am a white female and my vote goes to the candidate who can be trusted and has earned my respect. If Hillary is the nominee I won't vote for McCain, I just won't vote. All the candidates signed a pledge to agree with the DNC in FL and MI. Hillary is the only one not honoring her pledge. She has shown by her actions that power and votes are more important that keeping her word and commitments. Haven't we had enough of that for the past 7 years? This is why Obama supporters will not support Hillary is she is the nominee:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EdDzvmY1XPo
February 16, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think the last time a public speaker affected the masses in such a way was back in Germany wasn't it? Those young people were just mesmerized by that guy too."
It's tempting, but L will refrain from any comebacks mentioning Imelda Marcos, Isabel Martínez de Perón, or Lurleen Wallace.
February 16, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. You're right. Likening Obama to Hitler has merit and deserves attention.
You have no more right to assume why people support Obama than anyone does to say to you, "You just like Hillary because she's a woman." The fact is, they are pretty similar on policies, on substance, and people are then going to make their judgements on other things. For you it might be that experience makes a good president, for someone else it might be the ability to inspire makes a good president. Turning something you don't accept or support into a pathology is a terrible arrogance, and the way you are doing it is shockingly offensive. You are parroting Fox News lines and I am drinking kool aid?
I'm sorry you don't like Obama, I'm sorry some people have the gall to support him and not Hillary, but get over yourself.
February 16, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, anneeliz, I'm sorry you find it so "shockingly offensive" but I happen to care about our country and afterall, I have to live here for a while longer.
If you and the other obama-mites can't take the heat, get the heck out of the kitchen! It's going to get a LOT tougher than this gullible one.
Rae
February 16, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
After hearing some of what Obama has been preaching to the empty masses who are in need of something to fill the hole left by the last 8 years of the Bush whitehouse, its a little easier to understand why these Obama cult followers are so crazed.
To try to get them to listen to something as boring and mundane as logic, policies, programs, etc., is like trying to teach disciples of Christ, calculus. They don't care. They're mesmerized and they're loving it. They don't even care if it means taking our country down with their swoon in mass.
Like those who followed Jim Jones to that little island and drank the Kool aid, these people are mesmerized by such slogans as:
"We are the ones we've been waiting for." (Cheers, applause.) "We are the change that we seek." These people actually buy into this. Facts? When they keep bathing in such a nice warm sudsy bubble bath, who wants to be bothered with facts?
"We are the hope of the future," sayeth Obama. We can "remake this world as it should be." Believe in me and I shall redeem not just you but your country -- nay, we can become "a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, and make this time different than all the rest."
How do you top that with mere truth or fact??
As Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Wa. Post: "Obama has an astonishingly empty paper trail. He's going around issuing promissory notes on the future that he can't possibly redeem. "
So what do you do with these people? The same thing that has to be done with Rev. Moon followers and any cult victim, DE-PROGRAM them. The problem is, when you have such masses that have fallen victim to such mass hysteria, you can't really do that. The last time we had such a phenomenum was in the days of Hitler. Hitler too, enthralled his followers with such a passion that they marched in mass to follow him, right off the cliff.
Hillary needs to show the emptiness and folly of this approach by Obama and to reach people BEFORE they are programmed by this empty rhetoric. Catch them BEFORE they innocently drink the Kool Aid.
Read the article at: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...his_spell.html
Rae
February 16, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, if you want a real analogue to Obama, I would submit that it is Pierre Trudeau of Canada much more than Adolph Hitler of Germany. One notes the distinct absence of Obama supporting brown shirts smashing windows of Clinton supporters or beating working-class white women senseless on their way home from the bus stop. The rash of You Tube video tributes to the man is much more akin to the screaming mobs of attractive young women swooning every time Trudeau addressed a crowd.
February 16, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Raeka, if I wanted to win a primary in Wisconsin, I might go easy on insulting Germans.
February 16, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's fine bluebell, I just happen to be German-American. So I think I can speak on the matter.
Rae
February 16, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's fine bluebell, I just happen to be German-American
Happen to be? Fascinating! Please, tell us more!
February 16, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Denying all delegates from the Michigan and Florida primaries was a serious tactical mistake by the DNC. I agree with the party's efforts to control the sequencing of primaries & caucuses. However, the DNC showed it's hand to the Republican party by announcing in detail what its intent was, should those 2 states violate the DNC scheduling directive.
The DNC should have said 'there will be consequences' without detailing them. I imagine the DNC thought it was showing the consequences to be so drastic that the states would back down. But it thereby gave that info to the RNC. As a Floridian, I know that my state legislature is Republican controlled and it was the GOP that pushed through the primary schedule change.
I don't know the exact sequence of events as to: threatening consequences; the Florida legislature ignoring the threat; the RNC announcing its form of consequences.
Perhaps the RNC just got lucky. But here is how it played out. The DNC threatened that no delegates would be earned in Florida (& Michigan); the RNC went with a less drastic consequence (i.e., only half the usual delegates earned); Florida Republicans saw the opportunity to allow the Democratic Party to burn itself and so moved the primary date up.
In addition to the ongoing disagreements about whether Democratic delegates should be allotted and/or seated, there is the lingering disatisfaction with the DNC (by its own) that the heavy-handed consequences have served to disenfranchise the Democrates of Florida and Michigan. The Republican Party can, by contrast, point out that it punished the states but also allowed some representation. The RNC completely played the DNC, I regret to say.
Hey, DNC, don't you folks play poker or chess? Your tactical mistake has become an ongoing strategic blunder. You disappoint me.
February 16, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rae wrote:
Well, take offense if you want, but its true. It was the German YOUTH that put him in power. It wasn't the more level headed, un-emotional mature adults, experience & intelligent ADULTS !
If you doubt that, I suggest you read up on German history! But then Obama supporters don't like facts so I'm sure you won't bother. You'd rather enjoy those shivers he gives you.
I stand by the statement. It has merit and deserves attention.
Your flamebait-style claim is has no merit and no basis in fact whatsoever. By 1938 Hitler had huge support among Germans of all ages including most of those who had voted against him in 1933. Some claim his support reached to 90% of the population, and in fact it was the older adults who were motivated by his strong stance against the Treaty of Versailles as well as promises to restore German pride of the old days.
February 16, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm mid-50s and am rather enjoying the politics of hope, so maybe we (oops, make that "they") should raise the voting age to, say, 60 or so.
February 16, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aud although I am tempted, I will not offer Ma Ferguson as an improvement to my own prior analogues.
February 16, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I the only one who thinks this will not come to Super Delegates after all?
While Clinton campaign and the rest of the media seem more focused on Super Delegates- Obama camp is chipping away one state at a time.
I actually think he is going to come on the other side of March 4- with a lead of 150-200 pledged delegates;
February 16, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the whole point of the Clinton strategy is that any plurality that Obama has, the Clintons can prevail with the Supes to overcome that. At least that is the theory. Whether they can achieve that is another matter, but that is their strategy, together with seating MI/FL.
It is a duplicitous strategy because on the one hand she says she wants to restore the franchise to the voters from MI/FL, but on the other hand she is willing to countervail the franchise of all the other states. She must realize people will see through this duplicity, but that is not going to stop her from trying.
February 16, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rae, I truly cannot believe you love or care about this country when you are willing to paint a fellow Democrat as Hitler, and put down half your party as cultists.
February 16, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Fellow democrat"?? He's not my fellow.
If he gets the nomination, I vote McCain!
I'm a realist and a person first. If the democratic party screws this up, they lose people like me. If you want to be in a cult go ahead, you have that right! Just don't make your mushy cult leader our President!
And I have an un-programmed mind of my own.
Rae
February 16, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Translation:
That McCain, on the other hand, now he's a jolly
February 16, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
good fellow
February 16, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
that nobody can deny.
February 16, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Clinton supporters prefer McCain?
February 16, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hitler?
You lost the argument. Not a word more not a word less.
It's like me comparing Hillary Clinton to Virgin Mary- Preposterous!!!!
February 16, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it's like comparing BILL Clintin to the Virgin Mary.
February 16, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
My husband just said, "Who is crazier, the Hitler person or the person who tries to reason with her?" He has a point.
February 16, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell your husband that the answer is "the Hitler guy is crazier".
The rest of us are having fun while he seems a bit sad.
February 16, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never mistake ridicule for reason.
February 16, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if this link to Eli Pariser's (MoveOn) video interview with the Times has been posted yet. He takes a diametrically opposing view to Dean: he says the Supes should vote for the candidate who wins the most committed delegates.
http://tinyurl.com/2k3gpp
So here you see the stark contrast between the view of an organization which represents the VOTERS and the view of an organization (the DNC/Dean) that represents the PARTY POOBAHS.
February 16, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry but I'm a Dem voter and MoveOn doesn't represent me even a little bit.
And while Eli is certainly entitled to his opinion I hardly see why his should carry more weight than Dean's especially given the party rules. You know, the Democratic Party npt the MoveOn Party.
But I'll tell you what, when MoveOn runs its party nominating convention I'll be all in favor of him making up the MoveOn rules any ol' way he wants, OK?
And tell Eli not to worry. Obama will emerge by March 5 with an uncatchable lead in delegate count and the supers will vote in such a way as to yield his nomination.
In the interegnum isn't it fun chewing over possible scenarios and getting our danders all up?
February 16, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
MoveOn happens to be one of the few organizations that publicy stood up for Bill Clinton during his impeachment. In fact the name of the organization came from the idea of "let's move on" to the business of running the country. So Clinton supporters owe some respect, if not gratitude, to MoveOn for standing up for their hero during his darkest hour. Now they are savaging MoveOn for endorsing Obama, when in fact the members voted to endorse Obama.
As for myself, MoveOn does speak for me on this issue because I think the superdelegate mechanism is undemocratic, no matter what Dean says.
If groups like MoveOn do not speak up to entrenched power, well you know what they say about how power corrupts.
If you are a progressive, and you sound like one, then you should appreciate that there are organizations like MoveOn, despite their occasional mistakes and missteps.
And don't forget the had to courage to speak up when Patraeus sold his package of "surge" goods to Congress.
February 16, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
you people who are bashing these candidates with some terrible attacks.... remember when the repugs start their attacks dont complain because they will be much worse and you will have to take it or look like jerks
February 16, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rae:
Can you please share your wisdom and invoke the H word wherever possible? I don't mean Hillary ofcourse. That will seal the deal for some and seal the fate for the remaining.
Thank you.
P.S. I agree, you SHOULD NOT vote for Obama.
February 16, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
obama think republicans are voting for him because they like him .....i thought he was intelligent ............they are voting for him because they want to run against him......he better start getting specific or we lose in 08.....27 years we had one dem as president ...lets not go for 31 years without a dem prez.....DONT SCREW THIS UP DEMOCRATS
February 16, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
How does one argue with that?
February 16, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Standard Response 211B/1A is to send Zumper off to Obamaland where he can read all the specificity he wants in Obama's various briefing papers.
Perhaps Zumper has simply been sold the canard that Obama has no policy statements, is all Hope no cattle, in which case Obama.com him.
February 16, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You people jumping all over the "Germany" remark missed the point entirely. (Not surprisingly since you're probably still enthralled and shivering over the last Obama speech you heard or video you watched.)
The comparison wasn't to the politics of the man, it was to the folly of voting based
on emotional response to a good orator.
duhh
Rae
February 16, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This oversimplifications conveniently neglects the fact that Hitler ultimately gained power not at the ballot box but through back-room, power politics with the German establishment -- first Hindenburg and then the Reichstag.
It's like comparing apples to concrete blocks.
February 16, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are concluding that Obama supporters only support him based on his oratorical skills. I am a bit pissed off by that conclusion which smacks of arrogant elitism.
February 16, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Rae it is you who miss the point.
To suggest that Hitler attained power solely through his oratory is to betray a profound ignorance of or indifference to the many realities of German politics between the wars.
Hitler offered concrete solutions to his nation's problems, solutions which appealed to a majority of German citizens.
He infiltrated and manipulated all strata of German life by delivering, for a brief time, on his promises of a better life.
The majority of Germans really did believe that Jews were an evil within; antiSemitism long predated Hitler. And on it went.
It simply is not possible to reference Hitler without summoning the entirety of 20th century history and the horrors of his National Socialism.
Now you may think that unfair. Too bad, it is what is.
Anyone who must reference Hitler to make an ad hominem attack has lost the argument before it has begun.
February 16, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The bottom line is the super delegates have EARNED the right to use their own judgement. Interesting idea.
February 16, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just by looking at the title, I concluded that Dean's answer favors Hillary, though he believed that people would take his answer to be neutral. Actually, there is no neutral answer if you choose to respond to this question of what super-delegates should do. If you take side before it is time, there is consequence, and Dean is one of them to pay for or get a reward for it some day.
February 16, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way-sensless, wierd and highly ignorant comparisions aside.
SENTINEL- Wisconsin's largest circulating newspaper interviewed both Obama and Hillary before making their endorsement.
http://www.jsonline.com/
On their web site they posted video interviews that they conducted with Obama and Clinton before making an endorsement. They quizzed them about everything from Iraq to poverty;
Anyone other than those who are not enthralled or shivered by Obama's oratory and any one who doesn't invoke a ugly German word may want to pay a visit.
February 16, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The democratic party is notoriously stupid. They vote with emotion, not with their brains.
Everyone just knew, that there was no way dems could lose in 2008 after Bush.
So what do the republicans do? They get out the word that "Hillary can't win"..."Hillary can't win" mantra. They get Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Dick Morris to absolutely vilify Hillary constantly, non-stop, until they have the dems repeating the argument that they-the-republicans started: "she can't win" "she'll polarize us" yadda yadd yadda. And that dumb Chris Mathews plays in the sand box too with the shivers running up his arse. (This "Chris Mathews", by the way, is the same guy who voted for Bush twice yet pretends to be a democrat. Yeah, you wanna listen to his advice! rolling eyes...)
And what do the dumb dems do? They decide to nominate the farthest left liberal in the Senate! Obama!(Like Kerry in '04). Backed by the great far left liberal machine of the Ted Kennedy and MoveOn.org variety.
And what are the republicans doing? Laughing all the way back to the Whitehouse. Limbaugh is telling people to "vote Obama" in open primaries since McCain is virtually sealed as the nominee.
Don't you people ever stop think "Why does Limbaugh and Hannity hate Hillary"??? Why are they telling people to vote Obama??
Its too stupid for words.
Rae
February 16, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans are incompetent in every endeavor except double secret reverse psychology. Brilliant!
February 16, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Its too stupid for words."
So why are we wasting so many words on this?
February 16, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now here Rae you have an incipient argument for HRC.
I understand you to say:
1) that Dems are stupid so they must be choosing the wrong candidate a priori but
2) in any case the Dems are all enthralled by the silver tongued Svengalis of the right and so Dems are being reverse psychologized into going with Obama who
3) can never be elected anyway because he is way way far Leftist and
4) that is proven by Tweety who talks Obama up but voted for Rethugicans in the past.
Do I have that right?
Well in response:
1) is so broad and baseless a statement that no reply can be made. Please provide proof especially given the '06 elections with the national Dem gains. As for
2) again I don't see anything to demonstrate your assertion of this evil influence on Dems. Surely it can be as easily argued that the Svengalis are going for a reverse reverse psychology in the hopes that Dems think they have caught on to Rush's nefarious tricks and will nominate HRC in response, and for
3) I realize that in the debased coin of Republican talking points Obama is a Commie Loving Lefty Loon but in fact the majority of Americans support his positions on point after point
and finally in response to 4) see 2) and 3).
Let me know if I missed a subtlety.
By the way I'm an HRC fan.
February 16, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is way below Dahlia's usually high standards. In fact it is embarrassing to read. If she wanted to de-mythify Obama, she could have done a lot better straight up. Don't get cute with us.
February 16, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Raeka, you're a moron. Stop embarrassing everyone.
February 16, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh really? I'm not the one who lost myself and needed someone else to find me!
LOL
From Obama speech: "We are the ones we've been waiting for." (Cheers, applause.) "We are the change that we seek."
Wait on yourself long enough? Just think, you were there all along but you just didn't know it!
So you're all gonna be President now! Wow! That is inspiring.
ROTFL
Rae
February 16, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it that I don't doubt for a moment that you actually are literally "Rolling on the floor laughing" right now?
February 16, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Hillary's N.H. speech: "I found my own voice."
Who's voice was she parroting before? What voice will she switch to next?
'Take her out and end all doubt'
February 17, 2008 5:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.slate.com/id/2184536/
By Dahlia Lithwick
14 Feb, 2008
Dear Barack:
I know it's kind of lame to break up with you on Valentine's Day. And on the Internet to boot. But it's also kind of ironic. And that's what I need to tell you. As an ironic, contrarian, so-hip-it-hurts Gen X-er, I just can't love you anymore. I can't like you because … because, well, everyone else does. And suddenly supporting you just seems soooo last week.
Last week, my hip friends were all thronging stadiums and manning phone banks for you. Now they're all blogging against you and downing water and Tylenol like they've just done 12 Obama shooters in 20 minutes and then barfed in the cloakroom.
I know this is going to sound strange, but it's not you, Barack, it's me. Really it always was me, but now it's really, really about me. I don't know when we started to feel weird supporting you, but: My friend Hanna thinks it started with that "Yes We Can," video. I mean, last week I was totally crying watching it. Now just thinking about how choked up I got gives me the creeps. I think I felt something at the time, but even if I did, I'm pretty sure I don't want to feel it anymore.
Feeling inspired is soooo early-February. Or maybe it started when everyone began madly posting last week about how you are not the Messiah. And that got me thinking. Then, when commentators started accusing me of being a venomous drone in a "cult of personality," I just needed to get out. I mean cults are soooo 1970s. And cults of personality? So totally first century.
Cult or no cult, this week I just started getting really confused about you. I mean, when people start to say that your strengths are actually weaknesses? That just makes sense, if you really think about it. I mean, what's the point of being such an inspirational speaker if all you can do is give inspirational speeches? Do better, Barack. I mean, do worse!
So I've been thinking a lot about our time together, Barack. Supporting you wholeheartedly was the best damn 14 days of my life. I liked you before liking you was cool. But now it is, so it's not. Know what I mean? At least now I can go back to being flip and cynical and edgy again. I bet you wish you could, too.
But don't be sad! My friend has a Web site: IlikedObamabeforehewascool.com . It's not much of a site, but it sure is funny. As for me, well, I just can't be comfortable liking you now that liking you is like liking an iPhone. Maybe if you can be more of a jerk or play hard to get or something? Maybe you could uninspire some of your fans? Maybe then I could believe in you again. I'm hopeful. Or at least just hopeful enough to still be cool.
Me, I'm going to roll up my sleeves and start working for the Dennis Kucinich 2012 campaign. Edgy, no? And if things start really truly going south for you, I want you to know that you can count on my future fleeting and conditional support in the months and years ahead. Yes, you can.
February 16, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a report that talks about Harold Ickes, a top Clinton advisor, speaking today:
"The Clinton campaign is also continuing to push for delegates from Florida and Michigan to be counted at the convention.
Ironically, last summer Ickes -- as a sitting member of the Democratic National Committee Rules and Bylaws Commission -- voted to strip those states of their delegates when the states moved up their primaries to dates before February 5. Those moves were seen as a threat to the traditional first states Iowa and New Hampshire and were therefore punished by the party.
"With respect to the stripping, I voted as a member of the Democratic National Committee. Those were our rules and I felt that we had an obligation to enforce them," Ickes said.
But now Ickes, as a member of Clinton's team, wants to change the rules.
“Why should Florida not be heard at the convention?” Ickes asked today."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/clinton-will-fi.html
February 16, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Raeka,
Go read up on Godwin's law, and then maybe a little more broadly on rhetorics, Cicero might be a good a start. That is unless you think over-blown hysteria and concern trolling are going to persuade people. In which case, jabber on.
Thanks be you don't support my candidate, that would be really embarrassing.
February 16, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dean is right and those of you who are up in a lather about superdelegates need to take a Valium and calm down. The supes should not be externally compelled to follow the popular vote but I'm sure they will in fact be internally compelled to do exactly that. I'm guessing the statistics of their votes at the convention will closely mirror the votes of the pledgies. Take a deep breath and relax. Everything will be fine.
February 16, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. I wonder why he had a change of heart?? Kinda like his decision not to use public financing as he pledged to John McCain. He Flip flops a lot it seems.
---
By WILLIAM MARCH and ELAINE SILVESTRINI The Tampa Tribune
Published: September 30, 2007
Fundraising Totals | Primary States | Where They Stand
TAMPA - Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.
Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.
Obama and others have pledged not to campaign in Florida until the Jan. 29 primary except for fundraising, which is what he was doing in Tampa.
But after the fundraiser at the Hyde Park home of Tom and Linda Scarritt, Obama crossed the street to take half a dozen questions from reporters waiting there.
The pledge covers anything referred to in Democratic National Committee rules as "campaigning," and those include "holding news conferences."
Obama seemed unaware the pledge he signed prohibits news conferences. Asked whether he was violating it, he said, "I was just doing you guys a favor. … If that's the case, then we won't do it again."
Frank Sanchez, a Tampa Obama supporter who helped organize the fundraiser, said the encounter illustrates the awkward situation the candidates have been put in by the controversy over the state's Jan. 29 presidential primary.
That date - earlier than allowed by rules of both major political parties - has led to a threat of sanctions against both Florida Republicans and Democrats, and to the Democrats' boycott pledge.
"This wasn't planned," Sanchez said of the brief press availability. "He was going to the car, and he just went across the street for a moment."
According to Sanchez and Tom Scarritt, Obama was asked during the event about making sure Floridians have a role in the nomination, despite the DNC sanctions and the pledge. Scarritt said Obama responded that he'll "do what's right by Florida voters."
The DNC has threatened to refuse to seat a Florida convention delegation because of the too-early primary, which the Florida Legislature decided on last spring. But if a candidate amasses enough delegates before the primary to ensure the nomination, that candidate would take control of the convention, including the power to seat a delegation.
State Democrats are considering asking all candidates to pledge they would seat the state's delegation.
The boycott pledge was demanded by the four states - Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina - which are allowed to hold primaries before Feb. 5.
Reporter William March can be reached at (813) 259-7761 or wmarch@tampatrib.com. Reporter Elaine Silvestrini can be reached at (813)259-7837or esilvestrini@tampatrib.com.
February 16, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Flip-flop? You want flip-flop?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyC7loMop58&feature=related
February 16, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FwdNLlC9PM&feature=related
February 16, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Official A,
Are you really that shallow and inexperienced? What are you 12?
Don't you know that in a war, the situation is constantly changing?
You don't dig your heels in on 1 position and stick to it come hell or high water unless of course your name is George W. Bush.
Give me a break.
Get REal!
February 16, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha!
In his speech tonight, Obama said, "your words have to mean something".
Apparently he forgot about that interview in Florida about how he'd work to seat those Fla. delegates AND about how he'd commit to public financing.
FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP.
Yeah, his words mean a lot don't they?
LOL
February 16, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Raeka's gone round the bend.
February 16, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Institution-powered Howard"
February 16, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry, Rae. If Obama is elected, the mother ship will come and take you home.
February 16, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I just listened to Sen. Clinton and then Obama in Wisconsin on C-Span.
Sen. Clinton actually brought tears to my eyes when she spoke about the vets and the children. And I think she may have had one or two as well. She spoke of a vet who said not to forget his friends back in Iraq who need our help but that when it was over, please not to forget about fixing him too.
As she always does, she *detailed* her real solutions to our country's problems. You know she has them well thought out and planned out.
Then Obama, the rock star takes his turn. He did the usual "Washington insider" bit going on about how [I]he's[/I] different, how he's not a [I]Washington guy [/I]etc., etc. Well, we heard that before didn't we? Remember back in 2000 when George W. Bush spoke about [I]Washington Insiders[/I] like it was something so horrible you couldn't even put it to words, braggin all the time how he wasn't one? And look what happened there.
Then Obama goes on to try to address the criticism of how his message of hope has been criticized (how dare we do that!). How does he do that? By taking sound bites from everything and everyone he could plagiarize from the Declaration of Independence, to old speeches of Martin Luther King. And as usual, he stirred up the crowd. You'd have thought it was the new civil rights ralley. (Apparently these people never experienced it the first time.) But as usual, there was a stark contrast in the lack of detail between the two candidates plans.
And of course he had to brag again about how he voted against the war.
I just hope that Wisconsinites are smart enough to see beyond his empty rhetoric.
Oh, and I almost forgot. As usual, he had his people call up on the Republican phone line and tell their story of how they are life long republicans but he is so great and amazing yada yada yada, that for the first time, they plan to vote for him.
Yeah, right. My guess is they are his workers making those calls, and those people were NEVER republicans.
I couldn't get a call through to speak my piece.
Rae
February 16, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems pretty simple to me. If Hillary is the candidate, the party goes up in smoke, and McCain becomes president.
What part of that do you dunderheads not get? Of all the times I have mentally shaken my head at the remarks of die hard Dems at a party or fundraiser, this is the mother of all mental head shakers.
It is over for Hillary, it has been for going on two weeks now. If the Clinton Machine gave a loose stool over the Dems winning the White House, they would have realized this, and dropped out. Now, Obama will have to butt heads with this dying two headed Clinton monster, and fight off sideswipes from Mr. Hundred year war.
People should start deciding whether it is the Democratic Party they support, or the Clinton Party.
Personally, I would rather win in November.
February 16, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
People should start deciding whether it is the Democratic Party they support, or the Clinton Party.
Didn't you mean to type "the Obama Party"? Look at the comments of a large % of the Obama supporters on this thread or any thread. Cheezuz...it's a constant whine of "If Obama doesn't get the nomination we're outta here."
To me, that says Obama hasn't brought any new members into the Dem party.
February 17, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon me if I did not spoon feed my comment better for you.
As you might remember, Hillary's wife, Bill Clinton, was President from 1992 to 2000. This means their are many people within the Democratic Party who owe him for patronage acts proffered by him during his presidency. This is why Hillary has been the front runner from day one. It is not her loquacious speaking abilities or charming personality.
In fact, Hillary does not have much going for her without Bill. She is Bill Richardson without the resume. She is Mike Gravel. Actually, since Mike Gravel won a Senate seat without a presidential spouse, she isn't even Mike Gravel.
So trying some steam rolling super delegate strategy will turn a whole bunch of people from voting for her. The best argument she will have is she is not a Republican. At least not since 1970.
February 17, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, totally off topic, but funny. Here she is trying to win wisconsin:
Clinton told an audience she supported gun rights . . .
"I've gone hunting," she said. "I know you may not believe it, but it's true. My father taught us to shoot."
Clinton told reporters later she had once shot a duck in Arkansas, along with "a lot of tin cans, targets and some skeet."
I bet she hunted varmints too and she's been a card carrying member of the NRA for all of 1 year or so.
The visual is too funny.
On another note, Raeka, you are totally off your meds.
February 17, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Dean is exactly right. This is party politics, it's what they do and I think they will make the right choice no matter how many people get upset about it on either side. (BTW, it is actually the same side even though many people aren't acting like it!)
February 17, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dean's comment is exactly a non-answer. There can be no doubt that, at a certain point, the DNC will let it be known that its preference is for the super-delegates to vote for the the person who won the most pledged delegates. No other course of action is even thinkable if they are to "uphold the highest principles of our democracy and Party."
Of course, the DNC can't be SEEN to be directing the votes of the super-delegates. But it will. And you can bet this will be dome with long before the convention in August.
February 17, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
FL and MI didn't have anything remotely rsembling primaries. MI especially is uninterpretable, since Obama wasn't on the ballot. and all the voters in both states had been told by the national party that the primary wouldn't count. It's absurd to argue, for the sake of your candidate's convenience, that any attention at all should be paid to these two "primaries."
Anyway, by the time the convention rolls around, the nominee will have been settled upon for at least 2 1/2 months. Even if the MI and FL delegations are seated as is, they will have nothing to do but vote for VP, rules, and platform issues.
February 17, 2008 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
L0ngT0m wrote:
"FL and MI didn't have anything remotely rsembling primaries."
Excuse me, but how can you say that? We voted like everyone else!
Florida was a primary and I resent people trying to steal my vote away just because Fla. gave Sn.Clinton more votes. That is wrong!
We were ALL told we could vote. EVERYONE was on the ballot. And we all believed they would in fact count.
And Obama himself said he'd see to it that the votes counted if HE were the nominee. What kind of double talk is this?
Mimi Ritz
(Fla.)
February 17, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, our vote meant even more because we went out and voted even tho the DNC were threatening us with not counting them because of state moving it up in time. We were even more motivated than you were in voting in that sense!
Mimi
February 17, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
After reading how campaigns donate cash to Superdelegate's own campaign warchests, after much reading about what might be offered in terms of power and position to Superdelegates to get their vote, I note that Mr. Dean's comments about the SuperD's voting for their conscience and the good of democracy and the Party (note which gets the capitalization), after that, it is my turn, Mr. Dean, to scream. For a party to use the word democratic which I have always understood to mean of the people and to foster a belief in social equality, to give certain party members not only a citizen's vote but a larger vote in the nomination process smacks of elitism and an interest more in power than in governing. While it can be argued that the party needs to be successful in elections and the Superdelegate concept is to ensure that that might happen more smoothly, it also is an argument that the end justifies the means, and we have seem over a number of recent years just what that concept has delivered for a group of politicians whose goals differ from those I associate with the Democratic party.
February 17, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Russert is doing a great job making Chuck Schumer sound like Mayor Daley in 1968. Maybe coming down on NBC was another of Hillary's dumb mistakes.
February 17, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is no non-answer answer. The upshot of Howard Dean's statement is quite clear and, if accepted, it fully settles the question at issue between the two campaigns.
At bottom that question is this: Does the legitimacy of the unpledged delegates' votes depend on their casting those votes for whichever candidate has a simple majority of pledged delegates going into the convention?
Dr. Dean's answer is quite clearly no. Unpledged delegates are, in Dr. Dean's view, free to vote with or against the majority of pledged delegates, provided only that they "exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and of the Democratic Party." In other words, the legitimacy of the unpledged delegate vote is not a function of the pledged delegate vote, but rather rests on independent grounds.
The argument from Obama supporters has been that for the unpledged delegates to defy the "will of the electorate", as that will is embodied in the ballots of the pledged delegates, would be an illegitimate exercise of their discretion. Dr. Dean's response is that the unpledged delegates cannot, by defintion, go against "the will of the electorate" because they are part of the relevant electorate in this case.
Dr. Dean does not merely assert this view as a mechanical fact about the process. Rather, he provides a rationale for its correctness. This is truly a moment when political theory is on the hot seat, and Dr. Dean seems to have recognzied this.
He does not shy away from the challenge. That is why he cites the overall diversity of the unpledged delegates, their demonstrated willingness to take responsibiity for party business, and their (in most cases) own election by relevant electorates. This is Dr. Dean's argument for the legitimacy of the unpledged delegate vote.
Dr. Dean is saying that an individual unpledged delegate has already earned, through one of another of the accepted means, a right to his or her vote, and that this vote is, as a matter of principle, equal in weight and authority to that of any pledged delegate. He is not merely reciting the rules to us; he is telling us why those rules are, in his view, just.
Now we are of course free to lament the role of unpledged delegates as an unfortunate fact about process. The same might be said of the fact that pledged delegates can be selected in caucuses that have far higher barriers to participation, and consequently far lower turnout, as a rule, than primaries. Or that the DNC was able to punish Florida and Michigan by denying their pledged delegates any role at the convention. Or that the convention is free to restore the role of those Michigan and Florida delegates, if it so choses, despite those state's parties having broken the rules. No doubt, all of these facts of the process, and others, can be cited to show that the decision of the convention will not be as fully democratic as it might be.
But if we accept Dr. Dean's argument, then none of these complaints touches his essential point, which is that, in the process as it stands, unpledged and pledged delegates share an equal franchise as electors of the Democratic party's nominee, and that is right for them to do so. Dr. Dean's argument comes down to this: There are no more grounds for doubting the legitimacy of an unpledged delegate's vote, whatever that vote might be, than there are for doubting the legitimacy of a pledged delegate's vote.
February 17, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This may be a separate issue but I am more concerned about the Fla. votes.
I have lived in Fla. quite a while. During this entire election, we've seen non stop coverage on both candidates, Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama (& all the republicans, but they at least got some vote so I'm not talking about them).
I was visiting in Virginia during their primary last week. And you would not really have known any difference. I mean, I saw some Obama ads and a lot fewer Clinton ads. But most of the coverage was the nationwide coverage. And my friend didn't make his choice based on those ads or whether the candidates were in Va. or not. They never even came to that city in Va. where we were. So it didn't matter.
So my point is, the exposure and campaigning on the national level reaches every corner of U.S. So to think that Fla. would be any different had they come here just isn't true I don't think. We aren't a little state like Iowa or N.Hamshire. We pretty much know the candidates and their positions.
We knew before we voted that they were saying our votes might not count BUT our local officials all told us we COULD still vote if we wanted to and that all the names would be on the ballot. There was a lot of talk about that and how they COULD NOT refuse to count our votes. So we voted. And I don't think the rest of the country has the right to say now, that our votes shouldn't be counted or won't be counted because their candidate didn't get as many votes.
Sen. Obama was here and said that if he was the nominee, our votes would count. We have the right to have our votes count. We have more people yet Iowa has more influence? What sense does that make? Why should the Republican party (and I'm an independant) control all this. It was the republican party who moved up the primary so if someone's votes should not count, it should be republicans'. But they at least got half their delegates. But democrats should not be punished for what a republican governor and legislature did.
Our votes count! I think this is more important than this super delegate argument. Everyone knew about super delegates all the time for years. They were always there. It just hasn't been an issue for a while. And they have no obligation to vote the way their town or state or the country votes. That is the way the process was always set up.
(I also see our situation as being different from Michigan since everyone's name wasn't on the ballot there)
Mimi R.,
Fla. voter who wants her vote to count.
February 17, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it always the Obama supporters who say that if their candidate doesnt win it will rip the party? Because they are the one who will be doing the ripping. Thanks for the threats guys and gals - those Democrats who know how important it is to get the Republicans out of the White House really appreciate your mature refelction on what is important. And all the stamping of feet and slamming of doors fails to impress.
February 17, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that many of the Borak supporters have a sort of extremist attitude or personality about the election and that worries me. They seem more extreme and disruptive. I understand being supportive of your candidate, but they really seem to go too far in some of the things they say. It's a little scary.
Mimi R.
February 17, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like, for instance, Obama is like Hitler?
Glee, campaigns donate to eachothers' warchests all the time. It's not about superdelegates, it's about supporting the party. You might remember in '06 there was some controversy about some senators with easy campaigns not giving much money to people in tougher fights and challengers. I believe Senator Clinton was criticized for this, as was Senator Kerry, but I'll need someone else to confirm. I'm not saying that there's not a lot of corruption in the party, and that money doesn't have way too much influence, but this, to me, isn't a sign of that. It bugs me when Clinton supporters start talking about how Obama was obviously trying to bribe the superdelegates--because actually those donations are a good sign of his willingness to give his own warchest to help other candidates. And, I argue that if Obama actually did know the superdelegates were going to have a role in this thing, he's psychic and then REALLY should be president, because that'd be COOL.
February 17, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Judith, I believe you misunderstand. As someone who has made this point repeatedly here, let me say that most of us are saying that if the superdelegates decide this thing--that is if there's a perception that the candidate is picked by a bunch of party insiders--it will destroy the party, regardless of which candidate they decide it for. While I personally think Hillary is going to have a hard time beating John McCain, I would far rather have her be the nominee if she is ahead in delegates than have the guys in the smoky room pick Obama,. I'd rather risk the presidency this time around than have the party go down in flames.
I do think it might be slightly MORE damaging if they give it to Hillary if Obama is leading in delegates, rather than vice versa, because she is perceived as the establishment, insider candidate and he the more populist one. Nonetheless, I think it would be a disaster for the party either way, and the previous statement could simply be my bias talking.
February 17, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
anneeliz wrote: "While I personally think Hillary is going to have a hard time beating John McCain, I would far rather have her be the nominee if she is ahead in delegates than have the guys in the smoky room pick Obama,. I'd rather risk the presidency this time around than have the party go down in flames."
This is what I meant about Obama's people being a little scary. "Going down in flames" for doing the job the super delegates were invented to do to start with? Does she mean the Obama supporters will set fire to the DNC or break out in riots or something?
That is just a ridiculous argument. The party is not going to "go down in flames" because our process worked the way it was set up to work.
There appears to be a lot of Obama supporters, who seem to be threatening that or threatening something - I'm not sure what it really is their threatening but there is definitately that feel to it and it makes me very uncomfortable.
There seems to be this constant veiled threat about what "the people" will do. Borak himself started this rhetoric in a news conference. It seems to me now, in retrospect, that he was signaling his people to start making these threats. That is not very dignified for him to do that nor is it presidential. Its like he's threatening us if he's not "the guy", there will be trouble and trying to dictate to the super delegates. I don't want a leader like that. I am note firmly in support of either candidate at this point, but this talk is steering me more and more away from Obama.
The whole role of super delegates was to keep extremist reaction out of the process so that calmer heads could decide what is best for the party when it happens. Ater all, that is why we elect a president, to lead, not to BE LED. And the super delegates and supposedly wiser than the average American out there who is voting for a wide variety of reasons and impulses. I sure wouldn't want this country to have to make every decision by taking a poll of what the majority wanted because it would not always be right.
As one of "the people", I'm okay with that super delegate process.
As I wrote before however, I'm NOT okay with having my vote taken away.
Mimi R.
Fla.
February 17, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have not misunderstood. You are saying that if the rule of Superdelegate responsibility is followed and it leads to an HRC victory it will rip the party apart because the Obama supporters wont like it. I call that blackmail.
February 17, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
JudithR:
Why is it always the Obama supporters who say that if their candidate doesnt win it will rip the party? Because they are the one who will be doing the ripping. Thanks for the threats guys and gals
Nobody is making specific threats; that's just the potential consequence. Can you imagine if Hillary won the most pledged delegates and the Super Delegates gave Obama the nomination? The resulting outcome and damage to the party would be just as bad.
Of course there's an easy way for Hillary to avoid this scenario. All she needs to do is start winning some primaries and beat Obama fair and square.
February 17, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody is making specific threats;
You must not be reading the same posts that I have. That said, I agree that Clinton needs to win primaries for any of this chatter about superdelegates to be meaningful.
February 17, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
actually, the chatter is not meaningful either way - Dean has already said the rules still apply.
February 17, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
As we all know, some primaries are open, Republicans can vote in them, and, without speculating for why this might be, those Republican voters trend Obama.
So, a very concrete case where superdelegates could and should exercise their judgement is in a close race, where Republican voters are Obama's margin, and Republican voters would end up determining the Democratic Party's nominee.
I mean, it's bad enough that the press restricts our choices as much as they do. But to have Republicans
pick the Democratic nominee? That would be a little bit much.
If the superdelegate system prevents that, then more power to it, say I.
February 17, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democratic voters should consider a class action lawsuit to end the process of super-delegates. A case can be made that the super-delegates degrade, and are intended to dilute, the weight of our votes to allow the party elites to determine who gets the nomination of the party. It doesn't matter whether Hillary or Obama gets the nomination, both will be great democratic leaders. However, the fact that super-delegates have the power to overrule the voters is against the concept of democracy, and harms the voters of this country. A single super-delegate vote can carry as much weight as 50,000 citizen votes.
Do not lose focus on this issue after the primaries are over. While it may turn out that this process does not override the American vote this year, the chances are there for the future.
February 17, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's unfortunate that so much carbon dioxide is expelled over such a nonissue. These hyperventilating "Oh no! Super delegates!" individuals are making a huge and unnecessary contribution to global warming.
A couple of minor points. This party, and this country, are not democracies -- they are implementations of democratic principles by representative governments. Sometimes, your representatives don't vote the way you'd like. Get over it. Or, do something about it. It goes without saying that none of the complainers are active in local Democratic politics. So much easier to gripe about your reps than to be one.
And, I'm sick of this kneejerk "will of the people" crap. Evidently, most of the people in this forum are too young to remember that it was the "will of the people" that black Americans ride in the back of the bus and can't vote until a mere 45 years ago. I'll wager your moral compass implements the "any way the wind blows" protocol -- if Zell Miller was the presumptive nominee, would you suddenly discover that having "super delegates" was a good idea? Or would you just be voting for Miller because it was "the will of the people"?
Thanks.
mp
February 18, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the clearest part, it explains why they are allowed to vote for "whoever they feel like":
...Virtually all members of the DNC have been elected by their state party committees or Conventions, who in turn have been elected by grassroots Democratic voters.....These members of the DNC have earned their positions by doing the difficult, unglamorous work of building the party organization day in and day out, when nobody is paying attention, year after year....They are there to make clear: we're a real political party. Not so much about people from another party who might do a one-time switch over and vote for us in a single open primary, not so much about Independents, not so much about voters who vote on personality or voters that vote for our party once in a blue moon when they get excited by a candidate.
It fits in well with the theories of the 50-state strategy.
Being an Independent, non-party type, I personally am not attracted to it, and don't think it's the future, either. But I can understand it and think it's quite fair.
March 8, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
TooBubba On Super-Delegates: "Their role is to exercise their best judgment by voting for Obama."
Clarity is power.
March 9, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I ONLY HAVE ONE QUESTION, WHY IS HILLARY CLINTON NOT FORCED TO DISCLOSE THAT SHE AND BILL CLINTON ARE BEING SUED FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE FRAUD IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA????? THE TRIAL IS SLATED TO START IN OCTOBER OF THIS YEAR AND THE DISCOVERY PHASE IS BEING CONDUCTED NOW!!! THE CLINTONS ARE NOT GOD AND THEY ARE NOT ROYLTY THE RULES AND LAWS ARE MENT TO BE OBEYED BY THEM ALSO!!!!
March 10, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I ONLY HAVE ONE QUESTION, WHY IS HILLARY CLINTON NOT FORCED TO DISCLOSE THAT SHE AND BILL CLINTON ARE BEING SUED FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE FRAUD IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA????? THE TRIAL IS SLATED TO START IN OCTOBER OF THIS YEAR AND THE DISCOVERY PHASE IS BEING CONDUCTED NOW!!! THE CLINTONS ARE NOT GOD AND THEY ARE NOT ROYLTY THE RULES AND LAWS ARE MENT TO BE OBEYED BY THEM ALSO!!!!
March 10, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink