Listen In On Bill Clinton's Private Pitch To A Super-Delegate
One of the big stories of the day is this one reporting that Hillary advisers say they've been using Jeremiah Wright to convince uncommitted super-delegates that Obama has an electability problem.
But at least one of Hillary's advisers didn't use that pitch when he tried to woo one uncommitted super-del this weekend:
"I got a call from Bill Clinton on Sunday," said Ivan Holmes, the chair of the Oklahoma Democratic Party. "He just said that he was trying to round up the super-delegates and the uncommitteds to give them some momentum. He said it was going to go down to the wire, and that it would sure be great if they could list some more super-delegates, that 'if we would just get two or three of you to move it would sure help, momentum-wise.'"...Holmes said Clinton had not mentioned Jeremiah Wright to him, and described the former President's pitch as low-key.
Of course, if there's any Hillary adviser who would need to be extraordinarily careful to avoid mentioning Wright, it's Bill, given his profile.
Relatedly, we're on the lookout for stories in local papers around the country about super-delegates getting the Wright-makes-Obama-unelectable pitch from Hillary advisers. If you see anything, please send it along.
I'm not sure you need any more proof than this.
March 20, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhh, the epitomy of honesty and integrity. Very straight forward. Just what we are looking for in a leader. She impresses me more and more every day.
March 20, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, do black people live in Indiana? I think not! Therefore, no need for the Clinton campaign to distance themselves from anything, until it becomes politically expedient to do so.
Boy, it's going to be hard voting for her in November if it comes to that.
March 20, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm. Let's see. Who's a superdelegate in my state? Joe Lieberman?
Oops.
"Crazy uncle" Joe isn't going to be getting any calls, is he?
March 20, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure Ol'Joe was stripped of his superdelegate status after he endorsed McCain.
March 20, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, he was.
I'm guessing Chris Dodd isn't going to get any calls, either...Connecticut is just seriously out of the loop these days...
March 20, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only because he's already endorsed Obama--have heart though, the Clintons have already said they don't mind going after Obama's pledged delegates, so I'm sure going after a super is even easier.
March 20, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the link:
" '[Obama] should have addressed [the Wright video] the next day, to defuse him,' Holmes said."
I thought Obama did do that.
It just wasn't enough. Thus, the ground-breaking speech.
March 20, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
publicus -- where was that, do you have a link?
March 20, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg:
Here it is:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/clinton-doesnt.html
March 20, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure. Your homey Ben Smith posted it a couple of hours ago.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Pushing_Wright.html
March 20, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Google finds it in 0.26 seconds:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/clinton-doesnt.html
March 20, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, you guys are out in a witch hunt now, it seems..
Wright is a serious problem for General Election. and it's a legitimate argument to make to super delegates in private. any attempt to snuff that argument is "political corretness" gone to the extreme i would say!
March 20, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"political corretness"?
It's funny seeing someone mention witchhunt and Wright in the same sentence, and actually be defending the people taking Wright's controversial statements as a measure of the man.
March 20, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Won't that apply for you too if you are going to defend obama on political correctness gone too far? strange then u'll turn around and try to implicate clinton campaign on the ground of political correctness. Politicaly incorrect maybe but its a very valid point which needs to be raised privately among the democrats.
March 20, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here here! How right you are!
Dam straight!!
March 20, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please do not refer to Hillary as a Witch.
Who ever wins the most selected delegates has earned the nomination the old fashioned way. They have won more delegates than their opponent. This is America. We do not provide a Coronation for some loser, just because of their family name.
That is why all the states have held contests. To the winner belongs the spoils. To the loser belongs the whines.
Tell Hillary to win the most selected delegates and she will get her nomination, but if Senator Obama wins the most selected delegates then he wins the nomination.
In the Democratic party, the will of the voters is what matters.
We have no intention of allowing Hillary to hijack the will of the people just to let her get away with a Bush 2000 voters nullification tactic. If she wants to steal an election, then she needs to go back to her Goldwater Republican Girl party.
March 21, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will say it.
Wright-makes-Obama-unelectable.
Because it is the truth.
March 20, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary makes Hillary unelectable.
There, I said it. Feel better gotalife?
March 20, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not This Time.
March 20, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this something a superdelegate needs to be told? If so, should they really be a superdelegate?
March 20, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL.
Good point.
March 20, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it's "not a problem" for Clinton to say it...
why is she hiding it?
March 20, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Relatedly, we're on the lookout for stories in local papers around the country about super-delegates getting the Wright-makes-Obama-unelectable pitch from Hillary advisers. If you see anything, please send it along.
Greg
Perhaps you missed Rep Cleaver who was threatened and harassed by Jesse Jackson Jr to commit to Obama? I know it's not as sexy as a Bill Clinton story. Still..
March 20, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh no, we got that one. It was headlined on TPM for a whole weekend.
It was out of context crap then and it still is.
Cleaver was relaying a story of an inside joke between himself and JJJ and the rest of the congressional black caucus. Did you even hear the NPR interview that it came from? I did.
So, let it go.
March 20, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/clinton-doesnt.html
March 20, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
-Hillary stealing the nomination by coup makes her unelectable.
-Hillary dragging out her losing bid for the nomination to the detrement of the party makes her unelectable
-Hillary endorsing John McCain makes her unelectable
-Finally, losing the majority of states, delegates and popular vote make her unelectable
March 20, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy I just sent in a letter to the editor responding to the Nagourney story in the NT Times today. Should have used your response instead. : ))
March 20, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can one you folks gloating that Obama is unelectable because of Wright, explain how Wright makes him unelectable?
March 20, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, they can't, and won't, because they don't want to be on record stating that Americans are a bunch of racist voters, too nearsighted to see past a video of a black man who is angry at the country. To explain why Wright makes Obama unelectable would mean explaining that whoever thinks so also thinks Americans are racist and easily scared by a video of an angry black man and who thinks that Americans will be only too ready to believe that Obama is just such an angry black man, and therefore is to be feared.
In other words, those who think Wright makes Obama unelectable also think the absolute worst of the American voter. And who wants to publicly admit that?
March 20, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forget I said anything. Rae, below, is much more eloquent.
March 20, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Thank you.
It's been annoying to see people just toss around phrases "racist" "hatemonger" "hate speech" without ever explaining what Wright actually said - with context and history.
March 20, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yawn.
Do you think Oprah or Kerry lobby them any differently? You guys are just looking for a punching bag.
March 20, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please do not call Hillary a bag!
March 21, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone think that HRC pushed the Wright stuff to ABC as part of her kitchen sink?
March 20, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't prove that she did, so why entertain the thought? We do know that her campaign is actively pushing it, so that's enough in my book.
March 20, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be very risky for Clinton.
If it can get tied back to them...
Still, I have to address this idea that Wright makes Obama "unelectable."
I don't know what planet some of the Hillary supporters are from, but on my planet, the average American has an attention span of about 15 seconds.
6 months from now, with the economy in the toilet, and McCain preaching more WAR!, do you really think anyone is going to give two shits about Rev. "Goddamn" Wright?
Goddamnit.
March 20, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I've been wondering about that myself. I would have thought that it would be better to spring it right before pa as opposed to so far out, which cuts against the clintons springing it. However, the clintons may have been getting serious pressure from supers to shut down and concede because of mccain wrapping up the nomination and there being no legit way she could win. If that was occurring, then that would explain why the tape was sprung now to stop the bleeding and pressure from the supers.
It's just too convenient and the clintons have been pushing the wright issue for some time. Just go back in the archives of tpm and clintonistas were spewing about wright for a couple of months now.
I really wouldn't put it past them.
March 20, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, all they need is some momentum......
March 20, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what the hell would be wrong with that pitch??
This guy, Wright, is Obama pastor and good friend.
And.... hello? The guy's a racist and hatemonger.
And a friend to Farrakhan and supporter of Khadafi. And its all okay by Obama....
What the f***k is wrong with stating the obvious?
As if it needed stating.
This article is trash.
Rae
March 20, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
IOKIYAR.
March 20, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Baaaaahhhhh!!!
I hope the obama campaign uses your posts to persuade supers that the clintons are racist and hatemongers and that they can't win a third term.
What's wrong with stating the obvious.
Baaaaaahhhhhh!!!
March 20, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I won't get into your assertion that he's a racist and a hatemonger, but these two things make Obama unelectable in your book?
And if so, doesn't this disqualify John McCain and I suspect Hillary Clinton?
March 20, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are repeating the same bull shit for weeks and days now. If I didn't know you better I'd call you a retard.
You do need some mental help though. Go for a run for the starters.
March 21, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did I miss something?
March 21, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
RaeKKK in the Hood.
March 21, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, you're missing the real story here -- that I stupidly took Temple over Michigan St. as a 12-5 upset.
How's everybody else's bracket looking so far?
March 20, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both of mine are holding up really well.
I managed to restrain myself from picking a 12 upset this year.
March 20, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I had shown more restraint, too, although I'm kind of wondering if I should have taken Villanova over Clemson. I've also got Sienna beating Vanderbilt.
March 20, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This just proves that it's judgement that matters.
March 20, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meh, I was counting on KY to make a little run, which is obviously not happening now. I'm sort of sad there haven't been any upsets yet. I have a soft spot for the underdog. ;)
March 20, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, the Bulldogs were looking great for the first thirty minutes.
March 20, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
NPR had a college math wiz on yesterday. His class has done a math project that projects the baskeball tournament. He mentioned that the were picking Kansas State to defeat USC. He said that most of their models are pointing to Kansas winning the Final.
March 21, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
None of these stories give names or quote quotes. For all we know Rove is circulating this lie.
Unless you can find a superdelegate that says he got a call, and that Wright's name came up, this is just gossip!
March 20, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
bonerX:
With an exclamation point no less.
If you don't believe the democratic party should be above this sort of immoral and false expediency, then I suggest you re-register as a republican.
But then again, even McCain and Hucklebee are above this sort of defamation. BonerX, maybe you can find a home for yourself in AM talk radio.
March 20, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since, u r starting to call names, I guess i have hurt your feelings somewhat.
Listen, get real buddy, i hope america was 100% progressive.. but it ain't! infact not even close! only 20% are self-identified liberal.. almost 40% are conservative.. among moderates, there are more people leaning towards conservative than progressive side.. these are facts. You can try as hard to wish it away, it won't, this issue is here to stay. mccain ofcourse won't make it an issue publicly, but if you had any idea on how these elections play, u know he doesn't have to. Swift-boating ad didn't come from bush campaign, not even a word came from bush on this issue. but that 1 issue single-handedly sunk kerry's campaign. We're already starting to see the effect on many swing states and worrying even in blue state like MA.
Given the gravity of the problem, it is perfectly legitimate for the clinton campaign to raise this issue with the super-delegates in private. You don't want to go to the GE with a sure loser candidate.
March 20, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aha! The Republican wannabes are weighing in. Well, stay the course! Vote for McCain. The rest of us want change.
March 20, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
well.. given that that's all you can say to counter my argument, i will take it as you had nothing else to say to counter against.
March 20, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Until you link to the source of those statistics, there's nothing to argue about.
If those numbers really are the country's leanings, I guarantee you Hillary Clinton has no more chance against McSame Than Obama. But I tend to think your numbers are estimated, outdated, or simply made up. Given that 29 Republicans are "retiring" at the end of the current Congress, it seems like they are throwing away easy victories, if your numbers are accurate.
March 21, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you worry your little head about that. We will not be going into the General Election with a sure loser since the Primaries have already weeded her out, as a loser.
March 21, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop begging Bill.
March 20, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
>and actually be defending the people taking >Wright's controversial statements as a measure of >the man.
I thought words mattered?
I think they are the measure of the man, wikipedia "black liberation theology" its pretty radical and hateful. Wright was a psycho-religious hatemonger whackjob, AND OBAMA HAD HIM AS A CAMPAIGN ADVISOR.
OBAMA HAD THIS GUY AS HIS ADVISOR. Sure, maybe your pastor says some crazy shit sometime (I mean, its all pretty crazy anyways right?) Was Obama exercising good judgment when he appointed this guy as an adviser? I mean, this guy thinks the gov't created HIV to kill black people, and Obama says "Yeah, I trust this guy."
I'd rather have a candidate who tries to surround themselves with smart people, not their "friends."
Also, there is nothing wrong with Hillary saying "Obama's choice to appoint a wildly delusional whackjob as an advisor shows he has poor personal judgement, and that makes him unelectable." This is a campaign, its an adversarial process, quit whining. Also, with Obama's poll numbers dropping like they are, such a statement may be correct.
And as for this:
>In other words, those who think Wright makes >Obama unelectable also think the absolute worst >of the American voter. And who wants to publicly >admit that?
I will say that publicly, American voters are morons. I mean, they elected Bush TWICE. Do you really think the electorate is capable of making a sound judgment? No, they vote out of fear and out of impulse. A good politician knows how to ride that river into a push for good policy.
March 20, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't mean to interrupt your, um, rant, but one MINOR correction. He wasn't a campaign adviser (at least not in the sense that your portend). He was, I believe, an adviser on Obama's African-American Minister Outreach committee, or something like that.
And I won't mention McCain's embracing of Hagee, Fallwell and Parsley. Damn, too late.
Again, sorry to interrupt.
March 20, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
committed dems and repubs almost always support their own candidate because he/she represents the issues that they care about. but a large swath of people "in the middle" (uncommitted to the issues or principles of either party) make up their mind on intangible issues, mostly personality and likability. unfortunately, they are also easily swayed by things like willie horton, swiftboaters, and rev. wright...
honestly, i don't know what obama can do about rev. wright. he gave a remarkable speech on race which in a perfect world would put most of the rev. wright thing to bed, but we don't live in a perfect world. the majority of people will not read the full text of the speech or watch it on youtube. the republicans will keep playing the wright video clips right up to election day in november.
ultimately, the burden is on obama to put this issue to bed (if it can be done.) blaming HRC or insinuating that her campaign had something to do with the controversy is completely beside the point. it's been floating around out there for a very long time, so it was eventually going to get aired.
superdelegates should take their time in order to judge whether there will be a lasting impact from the wright controversy. not only should it be considered, but the superdelegates would be derelict in their duty if they ignored it.
it is what it is, and wishing that it would go away won't make it so...
March 20, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton's sheen is very dull these days. I hope the superdelegates will remember that Bill was the one who pushed NAFTA from day one of his presidency. He also pushed much of the deregulatory practices that became routine in W's government. Maybe we should try and find out who was answering the phone at 3 AM during those times. Probably an intern.
March 20, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The intern only THINKS that thing's a phone. HELLO?
March 21, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the same articel:
"Clinton spokesperson Doug Hattaway told ABC News:"She was and is unaware of anyone on the campaign pushing [the Wright] issue with superdelegates."
Unless anyone has proof otherwise, this is a non-story.
Next!
March 20, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, in much the same way that everyone generously took Barack Obama at his word last week, we should now take Hillary at her word?
Um...
March 20, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was he getting blown during these calls?
March 20, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
>And I won't mention McCain's embracing of Hagee, >Fallwell and Parsley. Damn, too late.
Feel free, they are also whackjobs, and thats why I won't vote for McCain.
I am sure HRC also has some religitard working for her in some respect. However in her case its likely to be someone completely acceptable and non-controversial. Being a good politician, she would know better than to have someone so obviously and severely flawed connected to her. I mean, did Obama think no one would notice this? How much is he underestimating the difficulty of this? He should at least have had a prepared response.
How can we trust Obama to implement good policy if he attaches himself to such volatile people which only distract from the narrative he is trying to create?
I mean, it might be nice to be able to vote for someone who doesn't claim to believe in magical beings who rule the universe. I understand though that sometimes politicians have to lie like that to sway the bigoted masses.
March 20, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You known what I hate most about this (well just about any) election? It is that my view of events becomes distorted by the lens of joe-six-pack.
I can't simply view the world with a critical and logical eye. I have to imagine how it will look chopped up into sound bites and delivered to those with prejudices and affinities. In this world reality become split with its true nature determined in a cross tab of a poll taken a week after the fact.
America has been influenced by negative ads targeted towards low information voters for too long. At least now politics have become the "in" thing to do. Voting turnout is hitting all time highs. An informed motivated electorate is the cure for a great deal of what ails us.
March 20, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's only one antidote: vote your conscience and let the chips fall where they may.
March 21, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't Lannie Davis' trial balloon about Clinton being McCain's vice-president if she loses and McCain being her vice-president is he loses a great idea!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011201956_pf.html
(via atrios and ezra klein)
Now I know why Hillary's been playing up McCain's "commander-in-chief" qualities.
March 20, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I am sure HRC also has some religitard working for her in some respect. However in her case its likely to be someone completely acceptable and non-controversial".
Ummmm, I think you better have a look at this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-ehrenreich/hillarys-nasty-pastorate_b_92361.html
Then, tell us how "acceptable and non-controversial" she is.
March 20, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out The Page right now:
http://thepage.time.com/
Evidently Rev. Wright was also a guest of the Clintons in the WH (see picture of Bill and Rev Wright). No wonder the Clinton campaign has been quiet about this.
March 20, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does Bill Clinton really have that much clout with top-drawer Dems anymore? Was his pardon of Marc Rich simply not a problem for anyone?
March 20, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
In this thread, possibly because of the Easter weekend beginning, you have a situation in which a bunch of trolls actually try to make it look like the site is anti-Obama.
All you have to do is study the posts. For example, different people wrote posts signed "Realpolitiker", and one of them might be a foreigner, based on it's mangled English.
It's possible, I suppose, that some of you believe kensdad is a genuine personality. But come on, Rae K and gotalife and the rest are WORKING. Their talking points are on a sheet. There is not the slightest intellectual content in any of their posts, ever.
And the whois blocks are burning down, trolls. I hope you're getting paid enough.
March 21, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink