« Poll: Obama Edges Into National Lead; Voters Concerned About Wright, Hillary On NAFTA | Home | Poll: Hillary Takes Slim Lead In North Carolina »
Clinton Getting Connecticut Super-Delegate
Hillary Clinton will reportedly pick up a new super-delegate endorsement Thursday, with the support of Connecticut DNC member and state AFL-CIO head John Olsen.
Barack Obama narrowly won the Connecticut primary, and has a substantial majority of declared super-delegates in the state.
Advertisement















:-(
May 1, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand the sad face. If Clinton continues the same vigorous rolling out of the superdelegates that she has this week, she will catch Obama in -32 months!
Wait, that does not look right.. -32?
Oh, I see.
Clinton is actually falling further behind so when I enter the ratio it ends up with a negative figure.
May 1, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
One wonders what middle of the night deal was offered...
May 1, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It's 3am and Bill Clinton is stalking the wife of a superdelegate"
May 1, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Barack Obama narrowly won the Connecticut primary, and has a substantial majority of declared super-delegates in the state."
I see that John Olsen has ignored the will of his state's voters...
But isn't that what being a SuperD is all about? Using your political clout, that We, the People give you, to buddy up to your cronies?
Willful self-promotion.
May 1, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not Joementum, but it's close. The dude's from CT, after all.
May 1, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary needs 80% of uncommitted stupiddelegates to win. It won't happen.
May 1, 2008 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
What Sea said.
I am sure Obama has a few of his own to roll out today.
The magic # is 285 delegates for Obama- at least 200 of which he should get from the remaining primaries. Meaning he needs 85 of the 300 supers still undeclared.
May 1, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
On Wednesday, Hillary got Olsen's counterpart in Pennsylvania. Which means that Hillary's last three supers have been unelected Party types: two state-level union functionaries and the vice-chair of the Puerto Rico Democratic Committee.
These are people who have extremely limited ability to join with other declared supers and exert peer pressure on supers who are uncommitted.
Obama's last three supers, in contrast, all are members of the U.S. House of Representatives -- one each from Indiana, California, and Iowa. And the California rep, Lois Capps, actually both is co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues and Chair of the Democratic Women's Working Group. (That's gotta hurt Hillary.)
Seems pretty clear who's scraping the bottom of the barrel and who's getting the kind of help of which nominations are made.
May 1, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, Big endorsement tomorrow morning in Indiana for Obama. Check out The Field.
May 1, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Baron Hill (D ... barely, IN) endorsed Obama last night at a rally in Bloomington, IN, so there's one more super delegate for Obama.
May 1, 2008 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Deadalus, is there a link for The Field?
May 1, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not only is the only way that she can win by coup by Superdelegate party insiders, but it will be a coup by really really inside party insiders, DNC members who nobody has any idea who any of them are.
Obama will lead in senators, congresspeople and governors.
May 1, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
psmdsfc, perhaps this is it?
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield
May 1, 2008 4:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
3.1 % is "won narrowly" now?
May 1, 2008 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Much as a five-point increase in his lead in the NYT/CBS poll means he's now leading Hillary "by a little more."
May 1, 2008 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, and Obama gets a switcheroo from Joe Andrew, former DNC chair appointed by Bill Clinton. That's a 2 delegate swing, minus 1 from Hill, plus one for Obama. You should see the AP story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080501/ap_on_el_pr/superdelegates
Now, that's an endorsement.
May 1, 2008 5:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daman, you beat me to it, you "monster".
May 1, 2008 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fabulous news, this and the endorsement by Baron Hill in Indiana. I daresay we'll see another one or two for Obama today...
drip ... drip ... drip - there go Hillary's "chances" right down the old drain! ;)
May 1, 2008 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tuzla Grand Dame pissing off Iran
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/7376741.stm
May 1, 2008 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Andrew is a good pick-up and his letter was encouraging. I believe that brings down HRC's super lead to under 20.
I have a feeling that the gas tax kerfuffle will end up being Clinton's Waterloo - at least I hope so.
May 1, 2008 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The late movement of state AFL-CIO heads is perplexing. Why back someone's who's almost a sure thing to lose after your organizational muscle is no good anymore? AFL-CIO presidents in OH (former), PA, and now CT all endorsed Hillary after their primaries happened. It's not quite a thanks-but-no-thanks thing, but a candidate who's framing her appeal on qualities that generally appeal to industrial unions could use an actual endorsement from one to drive up her margins even more among union members. After-the-fact AFL-CIO endorsements have to hurt a bit.
May 1, 2008 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Obama narrowly won the Connecticut primary????
Hey Kleefield - Barack Obama won Connecticut 51% to HRC 47%. He won 6 of the 8 counties in Connecticut. He won the popular vote and the delegate vote.
Doesn't sound too narrow to me.
May 1, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Andrew should be the first of many Supers to jump from Clinton to Obama. This is significant. Being the first is always hardest.
May 1, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Waiting for James "Judas" Carville
.
.
.
.
May 1, 2008 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm looking forward to the endorsements from Hillary and Bill after this is over.
May 1, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink