« Report: NAFTA-Gate Leaker Said Hillary's People Were Reassuring Canada, Too | Home | SurveyUSA: After Her March 4 Wins, Hillary Edges McCain Nationally »
Obama Supporter: Campaign Will Announce Endorsements From 50 Super-Delegates
Congressman Lacy Clay (D-MO), a Barack Obama supporter, has told the Columbia Missourian that the Obama campaign will be rolling out the support of about 50 previously uncommitted super-delegates.
Tom Brokaw was floating the same report earlier this week, but the Obama campaign denied it. If it somehow turned out to be accurate — rather than simply being Clay repeating what he's heard — it would put Obama ahead of Hillary Clinton's endorsements from super-delegates. "She will not make up those numbers," said Clay. "This race is over."
Advertisement
Is it clear that she is offering new information, and not just regurgitating the Brokaw rumors? It doesn't seem so to me from the article. My understanding was that the Obama campaign had squelched that story.
March 6, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Congressman William Lacy Clay is a guy. I know it wasn't clear from the phrasing - just letting you know. :)
March 6, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
This will make Obama be ahead in every single type of way.
Super Delegates
Pledge Delegates
Popular vote
State amount
She was hoping to steal the nomination via super delegates so if this does happen there goes that argument, the time to step down is now.
March 6, 2008 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hoping doesn't make it so—for her, or for you. ;)
She's not dropping out anytime soon, regardless. (The earliest she'll drop out is after the Pennsylvania primary.)
March 6, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
48hrs after the election BO is saying its time to take over the news cycle, lol. i am glad because i cant stand to hear the cable news outlets praise HRC for her "comeback." She was up by 20pts and won and the analyst call that a comeback, lol. Its about time BO start putting the pressure on HRC.
I read this article on the Huffington post yesterday about the flaws of HRC view that she should be the nominee because she can win the big states. Very interesting reading
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/clintons-big-state-myt_b_90115.html
And here is a link to one of BO campaign co-chairs articles yesterday about why Fl and MI shouldn't be seated.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-jesse-jackson-jr/primary-concern-florida-_b_90102.html
March 6, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
The argument against Florida being seated is disingenuous, disenfranchising, and the Obama camp would do well to stop talking about it. Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina all had their votes before the DNC-agreed date of Jan 14 - why haven't they been penalised and stripped of delegates?
March 6, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meant to say, does anyone strongly (and rationally) disagree with the superdelegates siding with whoever ends up with the most total votes? Seems like the most egalitarian way of representing the will of the people to me...
March 6, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
In that case, Hillary should drop out now, because it's mathematically impossible for her to catch Obama in pledged delegates.
Florida and Michigan broke the rules, and they should face the consequences. None of the candidates campaigned in Florida either.
March 6, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Foreigner said:
"Meant to say, does anyone strongly (and rationally) disagree with the superdelegates siding with whoever ends up with the most total votes?"
Because we elect delegates to the convention, not votes. It's as simple as that. The supers can take the popular vote into account (and bear in mind that caucus total votes aren't in the vote totals so that idea is fundamentally flawed)
As for not punishing those other states, the plan was always to keep Iowa, NH, & SC as the first 3 races so you could use a basketball analogy - No harm, no foul. Neither candidate wants to take away states that they won.
March 6, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
No harm no foul? Then why is Florida still being punished?
Cswartout: "Because we elect delegates to the convention, not votes. It's as simple as that."
And then there are unelected superdelegates. Their purpose is clearly not simply to side with whoever has the most delegates, as otherwise there'd be no point to them!
I hope Obama supporters aren't going to start whining about superdelegates being able to choose who the vote for, and try to change the rules in the middle of the game?
March 6, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Besides, there is no real way to measure "total votes", in the traditional, popular vote sense. Caucuses just don't produce those kind of numbers. What our primary system does produce is delegates. The supers should pay attention to those.
March 6, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. Either the 50 supers will come out as Brokaw was informed they would after Tuesday's election, in which case it's a huge blow for HRC, or the story is no longer accurate, in which case it shows that Tuesday night changed the whole dynamics of the race.
March 6, 2008 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is also the possibility that the Obama camp is telling the truth when it says that the story was never accurate. Seems to me there is a real possibility it was disinformation to begin with - float a story that Obama is picking up 50 super-delegates, then when they don't materialize, the story morphs into one about Obama's dwindling support.
March 6, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look for this announcement, if true, to be released in conjunction with results from Wyoming or Mississippi. It will give the media a narrative that fits the facts: Barack Obama has the delegate race all but sewed up. The Clinton comeback story was juicy and tantalizing, but it won't matter much in the nuts and bolts of delegate allocation.
March 6, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll believe it when I see it. Someone needs to explain the expectations game to whoever is leaking this. If it' true, better to just spring the news and dominate the day's headlines. This mutes the impact of any eventual announcement. If they can't deliver, it looks like the Supers were scared off by Tuesday's results.
March 6, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can't possibly mute those headlines if it's true. It would be huge news regardless of the leaks.
March 6, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
first the Obama camp denied the Canadian-NAFTA story, then confirmed that one of their aides may have spoken to a Canadian official. Now, they deny the 50 delegate story, now a surrogate is saying there are 50 delegates? things that make you go hmmmm.
March 6, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Still passing on thoroughly debunked lies, even after it has been shown that the Clinton camp was the one that first approached Canada to allay fears about their NAFTA rhetoric, eh, Karl?
March 6, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, right. Did he not read the rest of TPM Election Central today? It's like Clinton Hypocrisy Central.
March 6, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
The facts, my friend (please read as though I'm doing my absolutely rippin' John McCain imitation) are starting to catch up to Ms. Clinton.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/05/canada-obama.html?ref=rss
Whether her campaign is the one that actually did contact Canada and assured them with a wink and nudge remains to be seen and discovered.
However, it's pretty darn clear that Obama didn't do anything as the media accused him.
So we're left with a few options:
Obama was smeared by the Canadian Gov't by the conservatives trying to assure a McCain presidency
Obama was smeared by the Canadian Gov't by the conservatives knowing it was Clinton that did what they accused Obama of doing
Both of the above.
Regardless, you're continuing to spread lies that have been proven to be false. Obama supporters (the just and noble ones, that is) don't spread the lies that the Clintons killed Vince Foster. It's simply not true. Neither is NAFTAgate, so please move along...
March 6, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bloomberg News says it's not going to happen because of Clinton's wins.
March 6, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I sincerely hope that this is true because, if her threats are correct and the "kitchen sink" strategy is going to get ratcheted up even more, Obama needs to shut her down right now. I'm all for the primary race continuing if it is conducted fairly and with dignity, but if she persists in maligning and smearing, then this news will effectively shut the door on her already slim chances.
March 6, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not true. The Obama campaign said it's not going to happen. This is being pushed by the Clinton administration to make Obama look bad if they don't materialize. It's to get reporters question why he isn't producing them as reported. The Obama campaign denied this.
March 6, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Geez. Do they or don't they have these supers? They said they didn't I though, but maybe they were saying that they weren't going to announce them?
If he announces them, maybe it is an attempt to arrest Hillary's momentum and change the story.
March 6, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a few days ago, Hillary endorsed John McCain over Senator Obama!
March 6, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama campaign said there aren't 50 super delegates for Obama.
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/03/its_wrong.html
March 6, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
His name is William Lacy Clay, he's a man, and he's my congressman. He really ought to be in a position to know. He's involved at a fairly high level with the campaign and traveled with BO when they barnstormed Missouri before Super Tuesday. While it sounds too good to be true, it's hard for me to understand why he'd be running his mouth off like that.
Agree with danimal though that if it's true, they're going to wait until the next victory. You don't do this when it can be interpreted as a manipulative trick after a defeat.
March 6, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then honestly, why say anything?
Obama supporters should just keep their mouth shut about this, even if it is true, it just looks bad.
March 6, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think once American deaths in the Clinton-endorsed Iraq War hit 4,000, they will all endorse the man who had enough sense to know this was a very, very bad idea.
March 6, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eric, LOL - you crashed the Columbia Missourian servers - the link you provided doesn't work because they're experiencing larger than normal traffic. Oops! :^)
March 6, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I'll believe it when I see it. Someone needs to explain the expectations game to whoever is leaking this. "
Good point on this.
I do hope it's true.
Someone has to stop HRC's fratricide and seeming strategy of handing the victory to her good pal McCain.
Why on earth would the DNC stand for her endorsing McCain? On top of the "muslim" smears, racism, and general ugly fearmongering and lawsuits.
March 6, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was asking that question, too, until someone asked me:
"Who at the DNC has the standing to stop the former President and his wife?"
March 6, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you deluded or simply lying like Obama?
Please provide evidence that HRC "endorsed" McCain.
But you can't can you?
The 50 supers debacle is just like the Canada flap with Obama and his people unable to get their story straight.
With any luck he'll be asked repeatedly when his campaign is rolling out the promised endorsements. And he can go on slapping down his surrogate.
And Obabots have the nerve to criticize HRC's campaign!
How come we aren't talking about Obama shutting down his presser when the reporters started asking about Rezco?
When will Obama release all relevant documents?
When will he stop walking out on reporters' questions?
What does he have to hide?
March 6, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's about delegates and not spin. I have to think that the supers realize that. They must also realize that the Clintons have no pathway to the nomination except by trashing the frontrunner so bad that they will overrule the majority of pledged delegates. What we are looking at right now, and it's reflected on this forum is a state of war in the party. It's not going to help the chances in the fall. So the sooner this gets resolved and the Clintons get shut down, the better.
The Mar. 4 election did little to change the reality of the delegate race. It meant that Hillary has even less chance now of winning legitimately because she got a net four delegates. What Mar. 4 proved is what we all know, it's easier to damage your opponent than it is to make your own case. So with the 60 million Obama has in the bank and the encouragement of his supporters he can now open up all the closets of the Clintons and pull out the skeletons that are there, and we know they are in abundance, and skewer them. That may help his case, and will destroy the already damaged Clinton reputation, but does it help make the case against McCain? Is this what elections are about? The Clintons have let loose the dogs of war, and are determined to rig the nomination, so what we have is war.
March 6, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
they obviously have some supers. if you look at the last 3 weeks, supers have very steadily endorsed obama.
too evenly spread out to be uncontrolled.
the real question is how many they haven't rolled out yet. the number may or may not be about 50.
March 6, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sticking to the same point I've been at all along. Whoever can win the primary by the rules will get my vote in the general. It's too bad it's come down to fratricide, but I think Clinton knows her presidential aspirations are probably over for good if Obama wins the presidency. If he's the nominee but loses, she's back in 2012. So with nothing personal to lose, she's turning it into a brawl and probably doesn't care much how much of a mess she makes, for instance, by comparing Obama unfavorably with McCain, raising fears for your children if he is elected, and by throwing this thing to a convention floor fight that threatens the future of the party, especially all those new young voters coming online, basically none of which are coming to vote for her.
Clinton is a political animal that has been backed into a corner. Unfortunately there is no easy way to deal with her now. She doesn't think she has any options but one, so she has to be treated like a rabid raccoon, that is, cautiously and lethally.
This won't be easy, because her real WMD is victimization. That seems to have turned things in the big contests she's won. If we hear about Marc Rich, the Khazakstan mining deals, her campaign's role in NaftaGate, the tax returns, the admin records, docs in the socks, B.Clinton's role in banking deregulation and the housing mess, screwing up health care reform, alienating the future of the party, etc, it's going to take her down a few notches. But let's be careful about it, because it won't help us in the general at all, and she seems to do better the more she's dumped on. It needs to stay upbeat and substantive.
I'd start by going right after that WMD of hers, which is victimization. They started a little of that with the "complaining about the refs" line.
March 6, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Makes much more sense tactically to stay even this week on supers (to squelch meme of Hillmentum), and then to release them after this week's contests, showing momentum going into Pennsylvania, and feeding a meme that only 300 supers or less remain available, with a deficit approaching 200.
March 6, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink