THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS etc....

Even with the John Olsen endorsement (yet another unelected DNC official), Hillary's superdelegate lead has decreased yet again.

None of the morning shows are mentioning it, what a surprise.

"And just to make it look worse for her"

I'm sure that's why he did it, Eric. But could you give us all a freaking break anyway?

Is it Benedict Arnold or are we still in the Judas time of year?

That's gonna leave a mark.

+1 for Obama
+0 for Hillary

What's the deficit now? 18?

Don't you mean "+1 Obama, -1 Hillary"?

Here's hope that this is just one of many coming to the realization that this ongoing race must end immediately for the good of the party.

I'm confused, according to gottalife and the other GOP trolls that lurk at TPM we are voting for Rev. Wright now, not Obama.

Shouldn't this superdelegate have switched from Hillary to Rev. Wright?

snark

Wait. Does this mean Joe Andrew went from counting to not counting?

Obama picks up 3 more Illinois superdelegates: Daley, Currie and Stroger.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/05/obama_picks_up_3_more_illinois.html

Are these guys already counted or they fresh ?

Let me be the first to blog that Joe Andrew is a scumbag.

Carol Soprano of course complains that TMP is a Clinton blog for pointing this out. "it's a pattern here to ignore Obama's superdelegate pickups unless there is a corresponding Hillary one. Just the way it is ... we're fighting battles on many different fronts, my friend!"
When did this turn into a Clinton Blog? I guess TMP changing to a Clinton Blog is pretty significant and hopefully will encourage other Blogs to get behing Clinton as well. Silly me I thought TMP was still for Oilbama.
Carol Soprano sounds like one of the ones cheering when Obama media shill Randi Rhoades called Hillary a F*cking Wh*re in this "uplifting" Obama campaign.

Viewing this situation from a zoom lens perspective of sorts, it sure does look as though we are in a watershed moment politically. The dividing line: those who want to hold onto old alignments and continue an established [McCain or Clinton-led] leadership power structure and those who are willing to re-evaluate what changes are needed and are willing to help develop a new [Obama-led] power structure.

As I have watched so many forces at work to tear down Barack Obama, that increases my belief that the Clinton campaign is part and parcel of an insider power structure in Washington maintained by collusion between the parties.
Remember the exposure recently that let us see that the media's so called 'military analysts' were actually directly connected to a Pentagon's pr program? I am wondering to what extent the corporate media's pundits might be directly connected into and serving a status quo power structure's pr program.

Just as it was true that those 'military analysts' fed the public a line to counter the public's prevalent view of the war, it seems possible that the pundits are willing to feed the public a line ['guilt by association'] that is supposed to counter the real election issues important to the public.

eh, Wright exemplifies several key AA attributes:

1. dignitude: an excessive concern with one's own dignity and an aggressive approach to defending it

2. confusion of use of big words with intelligence, throwing out long winded verbiage, hoping people will think you're smart

3. paranoia mixed with utter complete fucking ignorance, leading to crazy apeshit theories about how the world works

4. a tendency towards wild gesticulation, flapping of arms, grunting and shrieking

Reminds me of Mumia. By the way, has he been fried yet? I have a bottle of champagne in the fridge with his name on it : )

Andrews had some strong words for the Clintons:

"My endorsement of Senator Obama will not be welcome news to my friends and family at the Clinton campaign. If the campaign's surrogates called Governor Bill Richardson, a respected former member of President Clinton's cabinet, a "Judas" for endorsing Senator Obama, we can all imagine how they will treat somebody like me. They are the best practitioners of the old politics, so they will no doubt call me a traitor, an opportunist and a hypocrite. I will be branded as disloyal, power-hungry, but most importantly, they will use the exact words that Republicans used to attack me when I was defending President Clinton.

When they use the same attacks made on me when I was defending them, they prove the callow hypocrisy of the old politics first perfected by Republicans. I am an expert on this because these were the exact tools that I mastered as a campaign volunteer, a campaign manager, a State Party Chair and the National Chair of our Party. I learned the lessons of the tough, right-wing Republicans all too well. I can speak with authority on how to spar with everyone from Lee Atwater to Karl Rove. I understand that, while wrong and pernicious, shallow victory can be achieved through division by semantics and obfuscation. Like many, I succumbed to the addiction of old politics because they are so easy"

1st: he's not the 1st cross-over super d, and to my recollection, the "judas" condemnation (which was leveled by james carville and not the "campaign") was reserved for, and limited to, governor richardson and because of promises he made to NOT PUBLICLY ENDORSE OBAMA if he found himself unable or unwilling to endorse hillary.

2nd: the tone suggest that this cat had a personal falling out with the clinton campaign that precipitated his switch, and not vice-versa as his highly-staged and scripted statement would suggest.

3rd: nothing he or any other super d does between now and june 3rd matters, on either side, because the conclusion of this race has already been set in motion and scripted and not by the party and not by super ds and not by the campaigns.

it's been set in motion and scripted by the voters.

voters have indicated overwhelmingly that they want this vigorous contest to include the say of every state in the nation. this sentiment is particularly high, of course, in the 9 states remaining to hold primaries or caucuses. those votes are going to take place, and no "hokus-pokus" of super d announcements or obama-campaign efforts to run darth vader jedi-mind tricks on the electorate -- "voters, thank you for your participation and enthusiasm, but your votes are no longer needed...this campaign has been decided by the super ds and is now over...thank you" -- none of that junk is going to stop this train called DEMOCRACY that has long since left the station and is going full steam ahead to june 3rd.

so blog away, track super d announcements all the day long, do whatever gets you through the day.

fact of the matter is that all any of us need to be tracking is the election calendar and the vote tallies that come in from the remaining 9 states.

that final popular vote tally and june 3rd national polls are going to decide this race if dems indeed want to win in november.

Actually, Eric, why no link to the full letter?

dancingbear: the consistency is that i'm not trying to compare apples to oranges as you and your compadres are.

pledged delegates based on results from state primary and caucus results and delegate apportionment rules is 1 metric. obama leading in that metric at present.

popular vote tally based on recorded and certified votes casts for one candidate or another in state primaries and caucuses is a totally separate and distinct metric. if a state doesn't keep such a record it can't, by definition, be included in the popular vote tally. obama leading in that metric at present (not including michigan or florida) by his own oft repeated words, but will not be leading in this metric come june 3rd.

it's ok to consider the metric legitimate now when obama can include it as part of his 3 prong argument -- "i lead in pledged delegates, i lead in states won, and i lead in popular vote" -- but not ok to consider the metric legitimate on june 3rd when hillary will be leading in the metric (again, not even including michigan or florida)?

i implore you to be logically and ethically consistent in your argument.

don is seattle and dancinbear:

my only contention is that there is not going to be any announcement of super ds between now and may 6th sufficient to allow either candidate to say, "hey, i'm now over the top!"

and that's all the hillary camp is looking for.

as a hillary supporter, all i'm looking for is super delegates to make their assessment after all the votes have been casts and tallied.

i believe (although i acknowledge, i could be wrong), that it's going to be very difficult for super delegates to support the candidate who's (1) behind in national polls, (2) behind in head-to-head polls, and (3) behind in popular vote come june 3rd.

if they do, they do. i just think that if they do, dems lose in november.