Obama Backer In North Carolina: More Endorsements Coming
The Obama campaign may be denying reports that they have seven House Dems in North Carolina locked up for a future endorsement, but one Rep. backing Obama -- G.K. Butterfield -- promises somewhat mysteriously that more endorsements are coming, possibly as soon as tomorrow.
“There have been substantial discussions between the Obama campaign and the other six [Dems]," Butterfield tells the Raleigh News and Observer.
"More than one is seriously considering making a public release this week in support of Senator Obama — more than one but less than six,” Butterfield continues.
Butterfield does say -- as does the Obama campaign -- that reports that all seven will come out for Obama are "not true."
But despite all the confusion, something appears to be afoot -- and any significant break in Obama's direction in North Carolina is a big deal, since Hillary needs to win the state or at least make it close if she hopes to continue the race through May and into June.
One particular reason to control the news cycle this week. If in fact Clinton releases her tax returns, she'll want to distract the media with something other than those tax returns, and so I think we should anticipate a fairly negative attack towards the end of this week.
March 31, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense. The only thing that Clinton needs in order to continue is to sustain biological life. So long as there is breath in her lungs, she can continue. If she has not been persuaded to withdraw by the losses she has already suffered or the disheartening prospects which she already faces, then I am hard pressed to see why an additional set of losses or (only slightly) more disheartening prospects would convince her to give it up. I am inclined to take her at her word that she really is planning to fight on until Denver.
Fair enough, of course. I salute her and her supporters for their determination and may the best candidate win.
March 31, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The only thing that Clinton needs in order to continue is to sustain biological life."
And money, do not forget the money. If she goes broke and the funds quit rolling in you can count on her 'suspending' her campaign.
March 31, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I really meant it when I said that biological life was the only thing necessary. She is already broke, and yet she continues. I do not expect that lack of funds really will stop her, because if lack of funds really were a factor she would have stopped already.
March 31, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're so calm about it all, Greg. I am quite confident that the supers will put him over the top soon enough. I mean, we're really quite close to that already when you add in the UADs that will be coming his way - also when you count those who have made it clear they will support he pledged delegate leader. But if she really does stay in til Denver, even if this thing is effectively over, I don't see how I will be calm about it. The convention really needs to be about reconciliation and not rancor.
March 31, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's people probably have a nice neat narrative mapped out for the next few weeks. All the support should flood in just before, or just after, Pennsylvania, I bet is what they'd like.
But others would like this to be over ASAP!
March 31, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally off-topic, but has everyone (especially Obama supporters) seen the latest This Modern World today? If not, do yourself a favor and check it out. It is good for a grin this morning.
March 31, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! Now, I gotta clean all this diet Coke off my monitor.
March 31, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The last frame was the best.
March 31, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, have you seen this article?
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008803300356
It is an article praising Obama's grandmother who he thru under the bus to spin the Rev Wright flap in his big speech. Turns out Obama was probably telling lies about her, of couse it was convenient for him.
Most of Dunham's close friends who knew her best are now dead, Soetoro-Ng said. But several current and former Bank of Hawaii executives — some of whom were mentored by Dunham and knew her after she retired — said they were stunned by Obama's comments about his grandmother.
"I was real surprised that he indicated that," said Dennis Ching, who was a 23-year-old management trainee under Dunham beginning in 1966. "I never heard her say anything like that. I never heard her say anything negative about anything. And she never swore."
March 31, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, you have to be the worst troll ever! Did you really try to quote bank executives and management trainees from 40 years ago as people who know Barack's grandmother better than him!? Worst...troll...ever. Funny, but not effective at all.
March 31, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are the forces at play as SUPERDELEGATES attempt to navigate the endorsement game?
One unspoken but very important role of a top party leader - the President, is to provide cover for potentially exposed members throughout the country.
As the race between Obama and Clinton heats-up there is potential for one of the candidates to over-reach in their criticism of the other, creating collateral damage for other party leaders. A good example of this is when Hillary brought Rezko into the debate. Shining a light on Rezko potentially hurt Democrats beyond Illinois and may land several Democratic Leaders and Superdelegates in prison. This created a ripple effect throughout the party. Suddenly leaders worried that Hillary was either a loss canon or she intended to play hardball politics against those who would come out against her. Regardless, the message was clear "Hillary is to be feared." Carville's "judas" branding of Richardson is another example of hardball politics to stem the bleeding of supporters moving to Obama.
For many, unconnected to Rezko but potentially exposed to other unscrupulous dealings, fear that the escalation of these tactics could lead to a response by Obama's camp that would put them on the chopping blocks. This fear was shared by both Obama and Clinton supporters. Now we know that Obama chose not to respond in kind, but limited criticism that hurt Hillary's credibility only ("support for NAFTA", "TUZLA", etc).
When you review the potential risk for supporters of either candidate you quickly realize that Hillary's portfolio is more exposed. She has a broad network within the party faithful and longevity in national politics. Just as the candidate has a history, so too do these coalitions and supporters and those histories could come to haunt them if a candidate chooses to expose them for political gain. Obama's camp is just as aware of these histories as Hillary's camp. Before Rezko many expected Hillary to protect their interests and tactics, but now doubt lingers.
Her longevity, by its nature, creates additional uncertainty for long-term supporters and coalitions. They have to face the relevancy equation of a candidate's need of their support which is determined by the reality of demographics. Over the course of the Clinton's career the reality is that demographics have changed significantly. Also the demographic alignment of a Obama vs. Clinton race could expose them to abandonment by the Clinton camp when the race intensifies, as many in the African-American community have come to realize recently and gays realized during Bill's administration.
In the end it may turn out that the "confidence Level" for Obama is trading much higher among party faithfuls than for Clinton (whether they are supporters of Obama or Clinton). Thus, Hillary's challenge is to raise the risk potential for those who come-out for Obama. The trading of "risk" is like shorting one position on "confidence."
It appears that a Superdelegate, who is mindful of its constituencies, has to worry whether Hillary would retaliate against them through leaks of insinuation, impropriety, scandal, or even indictment. They know she is brilliant and she has taught them to fear her.
This is a tough time among thieves.
March 31, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Theives? You mean like Obama and the Slumlord Rezco?
Exploring the neighborhoods within a 10 minute drive of the Obama family mansion reveals the remnants of the forgotten poor. In some places a vast emptiness exists; barren landscapes, houses deteriorating and broken, windows burned out or boarded-up, pop cans and plastic sacks dancing across streets and catching on barbed wire. In some places, there are people; cautious, huddled, weary, waiting for a bus, searching the want ads.
Words cannot describe the tragedy of Mr. Obama's Southside. It has been like this, at times a little worse or at times a little better, for decades. This is who Mr. Obama represented. This is who Mr. Obama organized. This is less than 5 miles from the front yard where Mr. Obama's daughters play. According to the last census reports, the national average of individuals living below the poverty line arrives at 12.4% with a median household income of $41,994.00. In these neighborhoods, individuals living below the poverty line showed an astounding 35.7%, 37.5%, and 46.3%, with median household incomes ranging from $14,205.00 to $ 25,705.00. Time is not Mr. Obama's friend. More and more dirt is being drudged up by the trial of Tony Rezko, the famed Chicago slum lord and Obama family friend. The Chicago Sun Times reported that at the same time Mr. Rezko donated to Mr. Obama, residents in one of Mr. Rezko's buildings were without heat for more than 5 weeks. Eleven of Rezmar Corps' foreclosed properties were in Mr. Obama's state legislative district. "Had I known that there were buildings that were in deteriorating or poor condition, that certainly would have given me pause. But I didn't know," Obama said. This is the thumbprint of Mr. Obama. Time and time again, Mr. Obama has been known to look the other way on controversial issues; from Mr. Rezko to Reverend Wright to schedules from his State Legislative days to more than 100 present votes in the Illinois Senate. It is impossible to claim ignorance about the dismay of the communities in Mr. Obama's backyard. Where does the buck stop? As president, looking the other way will not cut it, not in these dire times. The job of the President requires an equal amount of judgment, anticipation and action. Mr. Obama has yet to prove he has earned his stripes
March 31, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dem-Dillic,
I don't know if you'll return to this thread, and hear my response. It appears your intent on intensifying partisanship. Non-the-less, I live on the south side with in 20 minutes of Obama home and in
"...the remnants of the forgotten poor. In some places a vast emptiness exists; barren landscapes, houses deteriorating and broken, windows burned out or boarded-up, pop cans and plastic sacks dancing across streets and catching on barbed wire. In some places, there are people; cautious, huddled, weary, waiting for a bus, searching the want ads."
You describe the area well. It is true. The poverty level in these neighbors is horrendous. To most people this section of Chicago's south side is a great big "Black Hole." North sider's and most of Americans generally do not have personal experience working or living in a blighted and polluted area such as this. It is easy for the rest of our comfortable society to look away from the damage that dirty, ugly industries have wrought on segments of our society, or the damage of slavery on the social fabric of these populations, or finally the damage from neglect by an advance post industrial society. Ask yourself why is it that an oil refinery, such as BP and other polluting industries are not located in your neighborhood, but lies within neighborhoods with a populations of 50,000 poor people with broken lives as you describe. And ask yourself why the EPA continues to argue that it is safe for these populations to live there regardless of the high levels of Lead and PCBs, and cancers. It is easy for you to point to your own failure, along with all of us who allow this to continue, without the simplest gesture to involve yourself and fix what is so wrong with our society.
Actually Barack Obama lives with in a 10 walk of some of these neighborhoods. And yes, I am proud of him. He is one of the very few who have come here with an education and contributed to making positive differences in their lives. This is a man who came from Hawaii with a Harvard education to help organize people on Chicago's southside. How often do you hear a story like that? And yes, this outsider has gained the trust of this torn and severely broken community. He has contributed positive change without condemning their broken ways. I can tell it is impossible to come into one of these communities and not have to associate with strange off-the-wall individuals or situations. Obama has consistently focus on the good in these people to build upon. This is a good start.
And yes, along with the efforts of many people we are beginning to see improvements, but the problems are great and there is much more to be done. With a shared vision and the commitment of millions of Americans we can make real change in areas like Chicago's southside. Every American city in the rust-belt faces a similar situation. These problems are just going away. People are all too suspicious of each other to allow for solutions. We need to get over ourselves and we need to leverage the strength of American private enterprise with public / private partnerships. And that is what Barack represents for people like me who live in this black hole.
April 1, 2008 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Hillary was in Obama's place, the front runner, earlier on and she did not try to prevent primaries from happening, like Obama-ites. She did not create training camps to to teach outsiders how to interfere with caucuses and intimidate voters, like Obama-ites. She did not go around speaking of her opponent as a monster, like Obama-ites She did not tell him to drop out because she had it all sewn up,like Obama-ites. She did not say he was only driven by a lust for power, even as we who watch are increasingly seeing how accurate a description of Obama that is. Not at all. She praised him and all of her opponents. She urges all Democrats to this day to stay with the party, regardless of nominee. She speaks respectfully of Obama as a person even as she criticizes his policies and statements. She pledges to support him as nominee should she not be the voters choice. In short, she is running a strong, pro-Democrat and pro-Hillary campaign unlike the Clinton bashing Obama-ites.
What was it you Obama supporters did not like about the Clinton years? Was it the Peace or the Prosperity?
March 31, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, as far as I know, Hillary has never led in delegates.
If you have facts to the contrary, please post.
Hillary was ahead in polls and in media attention only.
But, as a DEMOCRAT who wants to win in November:
Let all the states vote. In order to reunite the party, the states need to "decide" who will become the nominee. I just hope she has the sense to drop out on her own after June 3rd, and we don't face a very ugly convention.
March 31, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that depends on what you mean by "led in delegates." Clinton was ahead in the total delegate count until the Potomac Primary, based on her (then) wide lead in superdelegates. It was only in the wake of Virginia/Maryland/DC that his lead in pledged delegates overcame her lead in superdelegates to put him ahead in the total delegate race. That said, he has always had a lead in pledged delegates, since the very first race in Iowa. In other words, she lead in delegates for several months (since at least Nov 2007, when I first saw mention of her superdelegate lead in the news), but never in pledged delegates.
March 31, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
I think it is somewhat disengenuous for the media to have asserted that Hillary was ahead in delegates when the primaries began. Given that the primaries are held to earn pledged delegates. Delegates earned without primaries should not count at all when referring to the primary contests.
In that regard Hillary has NEVER led in delegates.
Superdelegates are nothing but partisan insider trading.
They are not earned through the primary process.
March 31, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or was it the scandals and lies? So many choices . . .
March 31, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also seem to remember her trying to prevent caucuses from happening in Nevada . . .
March 31, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lord, I'd hate to ever be anyone in a position of having to talk sense in to you. You see things only the way you want them to be, facts be damned.
March 31, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The abandonment of the poor.
The sellout to corporate interests.
The "government by paralysis" factor which halted progressive momentum.
The loss of a Democrat majority in Congress.
And most of all, the national disgrace and humiliation of impeachment for an affair so sleazy, morally bankrupt, and ultimately unnecessary.
March 31, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What was it you Obama supporters did not like about the Clinton years? Was it the Peace or the Prosperity?"
The scandle ridenness and blindness to the apearances of their actions.
March 31, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you related to Lanny Davis? Both of you sound like a political Time Life commercial, replaying your favorite yarns from the 90s. How tiresome. But since you want to go there, do remember:
1. HRC's botched health plan.
2. Losing the House and Senate.
3. Saying to a bunch of rich folks that he (B. Clinton) "regretted raising your taxes, too" after his budget plan barely squeaked by in 1993--and cost a lot of Dems their seats, most famously, Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky. Not that his statement rubbed salt into the womb or anything.
4. NAFTA.
5. Triangulation.
6. Welfare deform
7. The '96 telecomm act (I'm still waiting for all that vaunted "competition" it was supposed to inspire)
8. Impeachment.
And if this was indeed a co-presidency as it seems HRC claims, then they've already had their shot.
More to the point, I'm not stuck living in the past, like some high school jock whose best days are behind him. I'd rather live in the here and now...especially when I have the potential for a better tomorrow with someone more intelligent and forward-thinking.
March 31, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fox News is running a Washington Post story that Obama credited a Kennedy administration airlift program for being responsible for Obama's Kenyan father coming to the US and meeting Obama's mother. Calling Obama’s chronology “extremely confused,” the Post’s Michael Dobbs attempts to set the record straight. The airlift program was from 1959 to 1960. Kennedy didn't take office until 1961, and the program in question was created by the President of Kenya.
In the Washington Post article Obama is quoted as saying:
“So the Kennedys decided we’re going to do an air lift. We’re going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is,” Obama said March 4, 2007.
“This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that the world as it has been it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child.
“There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don’t tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama.”
Dobbs also adds, "And as far as Obama’s claim that he apparently was a result of his parents’ union at the 1965 march: That, too, isn’t possible — without a time machine. Obama was born in 1961."
March 31, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, noteworthy stuff, eh? Ranks right up there with creating stories out of whole cloth about your foreign policy experience.
I mean, who cares if your family lore is a bit exaggerated. I certainly don't hold it against Clinton that she claimed to have been named after Sir Edmund Hillary. In my family, my great grandpa was supposedly a cattle rustler and had murdered someone in TX and came to MT. Boy was I disappointed when I learned that wasn't true.
BTW, I can add that Chris Bowers at Open Left is also saying he knows of 2 NC reps set to endorse this week. He also says it is absolutely NOT the entire delegation.
March 31, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, Obama is saying the the civil-rights MOVEMENT in Alabama created a culture where his parents could meet.
he's not saying that project was directly involved (obviously, from the time-line).
Anyway, what do these attacks hope to accomplish? That Obama is just as bad as Hillary as a liar?
And that we're supposed to elect Hillary the liar, because she lies better? She lies more?
Is this what the contest has turned into? Who's the better liar?
March 31, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You lost me at "Fox News."
March 31, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
since Hillary needs to win the state or at least make it close if she hopes to continue the race through May and into June.
Uh. 10%...Nevermind. Be in denial.
March 31, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Fox News is running a Washington Post story that Obama credited a Kennedy administration airlift program for being responsible for Obama's Kenyan father coming to the US and meeting Obama's mother."
*Yawn*
March 31, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded.
Typical Rovian tactic to deflect from their own candidates glaring weakness.
Clinton gets caught lying about NAFTA, Bosnia, SCHIP, FMLA, Ireland.
Now her surrogates point to Obama's 'lie' about which airlift his parents were part of. Nevermind that his parents WERE part of an airlift or that his parents WERE part of the Civil Rights movement, let's nail him for getting the minor details wrong. It's not like he claimed to spiral dive into Selma dodging sniper-fire.
March 31, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
We posted all the lies but this blog only cares when Clinton makes a mistake.
He gets a free pass like Mcbushie.
Obama talks the talk but never walks the walk.
Both are frauds.
God bless America!
March 31, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the lies you posted were lies (or deliberate misinterpretations) themselves.
First rule of logic:
If any part of Dembillc's post is Bullshit, it's all Bullshit.
But just so you don't feel left out, your recent claims have been pretty much full of shit too.
March 31, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Jaysin Hussain, glad to have you around to give the Muslim Viewpoint.
March 31, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point Otto F. fair is fair -- Obama misremembered. Of course, he were Senator Clinton his father would have flown the plane from Nairobi to Honolulu and landed under sniper fire since it was December 7, 1941, after singlehandedly taking out a few bombers and saving thus saving the Arizona which would have never sunk. Can we please start talking about McCain now????
March 31, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, the Politico story about Clinton not paying her bills is a lie.
Go figure.
March 31, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You base this claim on what?
March 31, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Gotalife knows that Clinton is paying everyone on time his/her paycheck arrived on time; or is it direct deposit these days, Gotalife?
March 31, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have a reference for that?
March 31, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Morning Joe asked Wolfson about this today. Wolfson gave a non-responsive answer - something like "we pay our bills on a timely basis". Scarborough asked him again if these bills were paid and Wolfson gave the same answer. So the third time, Scar asked "they say the bills are 2 mos overdue, what do you consider timely payment?", and Wolfson still had the same response.
It was kind of funny. He was like one of those pull string dolls with only one recording.
March 31, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
March 31, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
An article in honoluluadvertiser.com defends Obama's grandmother... the woman he basically called a racist in his nationally televised speech, and later referred to as a typical white woman. The article describes her as an 84 year-old woman with a kind heart who now spends much of her time in her appartment watching for stories about her son on CNN.
March 31, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, of course I should vote for Hillary because, after all, all these people were witnesses to every conversation the grandmother and grandson had, right? It's not possible that her guarded professional face might drop when at home and she could let fly with how she's really feeling?
Maybe she should denounce and reject her grandson for not describing the incredible sniper fire she was taking when she cussed in his presence....
March 31, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, of course I should vote for Hillary because, after all, all these people were witnesses to every conversation the grandmother and grandson had, right? It's not possible that her guarded professional face might drop when at home and she could let fly with how she's really feeling?
Maybe she should denounce and reject her grandson for not describing the incredible sniper fire she was taking when she cussed in his presence....
March 31, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Barack Obama's grandmother knew that people like you were USING her against her beloved grandson, she'd probably kick your sorry ass. I am sure Obama has his grandmother's interests at heart much more than you and the media. Call it a hunch.
I watched his speech a few times, and he no more "threw his grandmother under the bus" than he did cartwheels on the stage that day.
I am also a typical white woman, with a kind heart, and where I used to live, I was afraid of black men I didn't know on the street. So maybe I have some racial prejudices, too. But I wouldn't fault Obama for calling me on it. He's right. He understands these tensions...from both sides. If I were his grandmother, I would be proud of his honest and brave confrontation of this issue.
Politics has been so icky and misleading for such a long time, I can't blame you for your cynicism, really. It's hard to recognize an honest dialog when it comes along.
March 31, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Barack Obama's grandmother knew that people like you were USING her against her beloved grandson, she'd probably kick your sorry ass.
Thank you for that. The whining and concern trolling (see Joan Walsh at Salon) over this non-issue has been annoying to say the least.
March 31, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg D, I wanted to thank you for being so level-headed and reasonable in all your posts here. Your civility sets the bar were it should be (a bar I happen to miss all the time, but I'm working on it). Thanks for that.
March 31, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, the quality of trolls has really gone down lately. No offense, getalife, I know you've been trolling here for a while. But that Michelle woman, now there's a troll...difficult to figure out at first, concerned language, smart dialogue, and then BOOM she lays down the troll lines and you never saw it comin'. These guys? A two year old could spot 'em a mile away.
March 31, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well worth the read For BOTH Dem candidates supporters.... Includes the what ifs.. Dem rules etc
THE MATH – Monday, March 31 – After Texas Counties
Thanks to phrigndumass for the work
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/phrigndumass
March 31, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink