Hillary Campaign: Former DNC Chairs Support Us, Too
The Hillary campaign has hit back at former DNC chair Joe Andrew's surprise switch to Obama yesterday, releasing a letter from eight former DNC chairs that makes the "electability" case for Hillary.
Intriguingly, the letter states flatly that "Hillary can win our Party's nomination." But it doesn't say how this can happen, beyond saying that she's strong in Indiana and North Carolina, that her campaign is pumping at full capacity in remaining states, and that record turnout is expected in them.
In other words, the letter doesn't address whether she can catch Obama in the pledged del count or even in the popular vote.
A couple of the former DNC chairs are already known high-profile Hillary supporters, such as Terry McAuliffe and Ed Rendell. Full letter after the jump.
Late Update: It's actually seven former chairs and the family of the late Ron Brown.
May 2, 2008Dear Fellow Democratic Party Member:
Democratic National Committee members work tirelessly to elect Democrats locally, and they serve as strong advocates for finding solutions to our nation's most pressing problems. As former DNC Chairs, we are proud to be leaders in a Party that seeks to alleviate the burden of limited access to health care, fix broken systems of public education, improve working conditions for middle-class men and women, and ensure America's safety and security, at home and abroad.Those of us who support Hillary Clinton for president do so with the knowledge that she, just like us, has dedicated her life to improving the standard of living for others, and she has worked to make our Party the strong force that it is today. Her values are our Party's values. Her record of fiscal prudence is matched by her commitment to social responsibility. Her accomplishments in the area of strengthening America's security are a matter of public record.
Hillary has run one of the most formidable campaigns in the history of our Party. Her wins this primary season are significant -- Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas. Her base of support includes women, Hispanics, seniors, Catholics, middle and low income Americans, and rural, suburban and urban voters. That's a formidable coalition tailor-made for victory in a November general election.
In fact, if the election were held today, Hillary would beat Senator McCain, but Senator Obama would lose to the presumptive GOP nominee. According to the most recent polls available, Hillary would beat McCain by a margin of 279 to 259 Electoral Votes. But McCain would beat Obama by a margin of 291 to 247 Electoral Votes.
In a hypothetical general election matchup with McCain, Clinton is winning handily (50%-41%) while Obama is statistically tied with McCain (46%-44%), according to the AP-Ipsos poll released Monday. In the days following the Pennsylvania primary, Gallup Poll Daily tracking showed Hillary pulling even with Senator Obama. As of Thursday, Hillary was ahead 49%-45%.
Hillary can win our Party's nomination. She is neck and neck with her opponent in Indiana and North Carolina. Both states have sizeable voting blocs that resemble constituencies who supported Hillary by large margins in Pennsylvania, Ohio and other contests.
Years of job loss and the recent economic slowdown mean that most Indiana and North Carolina voters are more concerned about the economy than anything else. Hillary has consistently garnered the majority of support from voters who say the economy is the most important issue facing our country.
Hillary's campaign is currently operating at full capacity in Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota.
As in states that have already voted, election official are expecting record turnouts. Pennsylvania registered more than 215,000 new voters ahead of its April 22 primary. More than 200,000 new voters have registered in Indiana since the start of the year. And in counties across North Carolina, registration numbers are double - or triple - what they were in 2004.
More than 30 million Americans have already cast a ballot in our Party's nomination contest and millions more will go to the polls between now and June 3. The record numbers of Americans who are registering and coming out to vote reflect the excitement about our candidates and the strength that our nominee will have behind him or her in the fall. The primary process will make our nominee stronger and better prepared to take on John McCain. Our Party only gains from having more voters - including more new voters - all across our country.
We encourage you to continue to fully consider Hillary Clinton and the fact that she is qualified and accomplished. Too much is at stake for us not to consider deeply the choice we must make for our Party and our country.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Curtis
Former DNC Chairman (1977-1978)
Charles Manatt
Former DNC Chairman (1981-1985)
The Family of the late Ron Brown
Former DNC Chairman (1989-1993)
Mrs. Alma Brown, Michael Arrington Brown & Tracey Brown JamesDebra DeLee
Former DNC Chair (1994-1995)Don Fowler
Former DNC National Chairman (1995-1997)Steve Grossman
Former DNC National Chairman (1997-1999)Governor Edward Rendell
Former DNC General Chairman (1999-2001)Terence McAuliffe
Former DNC Chairman (2001-2005)
In other words, her letter brings nothing new to the table.
May 2, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
WOW!!!!!!!!!
So basically 7 out of 9 (or 8 out of 10 if you include Ron Brown's family speaking on his behalf) back Clinton??!?!?!?
May 2, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seven of Nine -- doesn't that sound a bit familiar?
May 2, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The family of the late Ron Brown? Are you serious?
The first two are older but the rest are all Clinton-era. BFD.
May 2, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, please note, the letter is not from 8 former DNC chairs, it's from 7 former DNC chairs and the "Family of the late Ron Brown"
May 2, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the correction, Greg.
May 2, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seat FL and MI as they voted, that's how she wins.
May 2, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
that isn't going to happen.
The DNC isn't going to seat MI based on a ballot that didn't have Obama on it.
May 2, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
He should have chosen to respect the MI voters and not pander to Iowans.
He made the decision to remove his name. No one made him do it.
May 2, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
if the elected officials of Michigan
had any respect at all for the residents
of their state, they would not have
fucking disenfranchised all of them.
the rules are the rules are the rules
May 2, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, they all pledged to remove their names, but Hillary was lying, as usual.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5429947
May 2, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Face the facts...
1> The Democrats *ARE NOT* going to risk not seating the Florida and Michigan delegates at the convention.
2> The Obama campaign is clearly going to be in the lead without those states, both in terms of total votes, states won, and delegates.
3> As such, clearly enough of the superdels will be supportive of Obama, if only because their states voted for him.
4> The Clinton campaign's only argument for winning, therefore, is that Florida and Michigan will be seated as they voted, without Obama on MI's ballot.
5> This isn't going to happen, as Obama supporters have the majority of support on the committee that oversees the rules for this... and every reasonable compromise leads to an Obama victory.
What it comes down to is that she's lost based on the delegates, the party supporters, and the rules. And if you don't have a clear majority of party supporters, there's *no way* you're going to change the rules of the game after its been played.
May 2, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alright, I'll be the dick here - who cares what his family thinks?
May 2, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too late, I was a dick first.
May 2, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's ok, you are both dicks.
May 2, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup.
May 2, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
None of these add to her count.
Smoke & mirrors
May 2, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Due to financial constraints, the budget for smoke has been eliminated.
The campaign will henceforth be run entirely upon mirrors.
Meheheheh.
May 2, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
ya gotta love this guy!
May 2, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The supers can switch at any time.
After she wins Tuesday, they will come to Clinton.
May 2, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
gotalife -
are you predicting Hillary wins NC?
If she does not, do you agree she should drop out?
If not, why not?
May 2, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife just goes by whatever goal post the Clinton's have moved to. Pretty soon we'll be hearing how Puerto Rico will finally cinch the nomination for Clinton and all the supers will switch their support.
May 2, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is exactly what President Clinton said and that is exactly what will happen.
Instead of disrespecting the President, you should listen to him.
He is the reason, she will win NC.
He has worked for it with 6 stops a day in rural NC.
May 2, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad to hear Puerto Rico counts, despite the fact that they don't even vote in the general. With all of those, you know, states that don't count, I was worried we wouldn't get a quorum at the convention.
May 2, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it will be Obama who will drop out.
May 2, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice hat!
Meheheheh.
May 2, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I used to think you were a Hillary supporter, but now I'm convinced that you're a Limbaugh Democrat.
Even Hillary supporters aren't *that* dumb.
Where do you get your storylines for Hillary Clinton's chances of winning this race? Tom Clancy novels?!
May 2, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Woop-De-Doo!!!
May 2, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the Clinton campaign's way of spinning "a vital supporter defected" is "we still have supporters who haven't defected!"?
Huh.
May 2, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please ignore this post... testin' something
May 3, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is she running for class president of the 8th grade, or what?
May 2, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOLOLOL! God, what juveniles these people are sometimes! ;)
May 2, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I wish someone - ANYONE - would ask all of Hillary's bigwig supporters how she (or they) think it's possible to create a large enough Democratic majority behind her to beat John McCain in the fall, given what she will have to do to win the nomination. And no, the current polls are not an argument - the election is six months away, for Chrissakes. Those polls mean nothing now, and I don't take them seriously even when they show Obama running better against McCain than Hillary.
Seriously, how would Hillary get blacks behind her when the most legitimate black contender for the presidency would have had the nomination essentially stolen from him? And what about the young people he's brought out?
Specifically, how will she win these voters back?
At least when this is all said and done, Obama will have been able to say he won the nomination legitimately, and without having to kneecap Hillary to do it. Even if she somehow gets the nomination, she won't be able to say either. And it will hurt her.
Yet nobody seems to want to talk about that. I guess it's just not interesting enough with the horserace and all.
May 2, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
His win won't be legitimate without FL and MI seated in a way that reflects the will of the voters in those states.
May 2, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you hear Howard Dean last night on the Daily Show? They will be seated at the convention. And don't even both going near Michigan - she was the only name on the ballot and there's no way in hell any of those delegates are going to be counted.
May 2, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you are wrong. They should count. NO ONE told Obama and Edwards to take their names off the MI ballot. And her name wasn' tthe only one on the ballot, by the way.
Obama was shamelessly pandering to Iowans, who have been allowed to believe they have a god-given right to chose our nominees.
Again, Obama made the decision to disrespect the voters of MI. He just needs to deal with it.
And if he doesn't want to deal with it. He needs to start winning and knock Clinton out. But, he can't seem to do that.
May 2, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know Obama didn't do any such thing.
that's just utter crap.
Better trolls please!
May 2, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me!
Are you saying that someone made Obama take his name off the ballot???
May 2, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop this bullshit, now.
Clinton also tried to remove her name from the ballot. All campaigns agreed to do that. Clinton failed to get the paperwork in, apparently.
Stop this bullshit. All major candidates agreed to honor the DNC rules.
May 2, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is simply not true! Clinton made a public statement saying she refused to disrespect the voters of MI.
You cannot create your own reality.
May 2, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
you cannot create your own reality
That's a pretty funny statement, coming from a Hillary ("this election isn't about who you'd like to have a beer with" "can I have a shot of Crown Royal, please") Clinton.
In any event, what I have heard (from people in Michigan) about the Michigan ballot situation is that the Clinton campaign tried to remove her name, but didn't submit the paperwork in time.
And, if you thought about this for a millisecond, you'd appreciate that it isn't an attack on Clinton.
May 2, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, she told the NPR affiliate in NH that she didn't do it because they wouldn't count anyway:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PAjg
May 2, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's all bookmark this NH NPR YouTube clip right now and paste it in anytime any troll spouts this nonsense.
Every superdelegate should have that audio clip memorized to know how two-faced and self serving Clinton is being with all this Florida and Michigan crap.
May 2, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
She didn't "fail" to get the paperwork in. That was another move from the Rove handbook.
May 2, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
They didn't even try:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/Clinton_will_stay_in_Michigan.html
May 2, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sayin that the rules were made in advance. Michigan knew the consequences of the decision and you can thank Granholm for that. She insisted because she thought she could pull an early win for her girl by doing that.
She fucked her own voters in her own state.
Obama followed the goddamn rules. Do you have any idea what this is about? This is not the general election.
May 2, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Language!
There was never a single rule that forced Obama to remove his name from a ballot. He KNEW people would vote anyway. He's a pandering opportunist who deserves to be screwed.
May 2, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Possibly. He is, however, also the one who obeyed the rules upon which all parties unanimously agreed (including MI's own representatives to the party meeting at which these rules were crafted). For better or worse, their punishment is fair (if nonetheless insufferable). It is not clear to me that the DNC's own officers will wish to vitiate the only means by which the party is able to exercise any authority.
May 2, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
No he wasn't forced. He just did the RIGHT THING and honored the pledge he'd signed.
Clinton signed the pledge and then left her name on because she has no respect for rules or fairness.
May 2, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
THERE WAS NO PLEDGE TO TAKE THEIR NAMES OFF THE BALLOTS IN AN ELECTION, NO MATTER WHAT THE DNC SAID, THAT WOULD HAVE VOTERS VOTING IN.
May 2, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
So that whole pledge thing that people have posted doesn't actually exist?
And why are you shouting?
May 2, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for shouting.
They signed a pledge to not actively campaign.
There was no such signed pledge involving the mandatory removing of names from ballots.
Obama and Edwards wanted a little press, so they could go to Iowa and say, "Look, we agree you have a god-given right to pick our nominees."
This is the epitome of pandering. Plain. And. Simple.
May 2, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
So having one's name on a ballot does not constitute participation in the contest? I think your point here sounds rather strained. If one pledges that one "shall not campaign or participate in any election contest" then the mere avoidance of campaigning in the state is not enough to satisfy the terms of the pledge. It seems a strained analysis that could conclude that one has one's name on the ballot but is not "participating."
May 2, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have to do some serious parsing to reach that conclusion. But parse away!
May 2, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The pledge didn't just say no campaigning, it said "will not participate."
May 2, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
They all pledged to, but Hillary was lying and did not remove her name.
THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008). Campaigning shall include but is not limited to purchasing media or campaign advocacy of any kind, attending or hosting events of more than 200 people to promote one’s candidacy for a preference primary and employing staff in the state in question. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.
The candidates where suppose to remove their names from the MI and FL ballot in order to fulfill the non-participation clause. Most did in MI and it was to late to have names removed by any in FL.
I personally feel that Clinton should have taken her name out of MI as well but perhaps it was an oversight by her campaign.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5429947
May 2, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
There isn't a single thing there that says the candidates must remove their names from the ballot.
Again, they all knew that the voters would go to the polls anyway.
Clinton publicly stated that she would not remover her name because that would be terribly disrespectful to the voters. Chris Dodd and Kucinich apparently felt the same way.
Obama and Edwards were simply pandering to Iowa. That pandering will cost Obama dearly.
There's no way the DNC will not back down from this. If Clinton does as well as expected in the remaining contests, proving Obama is (to say the least) weak, they will back down. Thus giving her a lead in pledged delegate count and popular vote.
Sorry kids. Obama needs a miracle on Tuesday. If he pulls that off, it may mean the end of this discussion. If its a big lost, that means doom for his candidacy.
May 2, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreeing not to participate in an election means you take you name off the ballot. Being on the ballot is participating, in fact it is the ultimate participation.
May 2, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Per John Nichols of the Nation the reason Michigan got moved up in the first place was to give Hillary an easy win. She is responsible for their delegates not being seated.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/7/could_michigan_and_florida_decide_the
The DNC will seat the delegates, but will probably seat them 50/50. It is only fair. You can’t seat the delegates according to the vote; campaigning was not allowed and many voters did NOT go to the polls because they didn’t think it would count. You keep claiming people from FL and MI will be disenfranchised if their delegates don’t get seated, and that is true. But many more will be disenfranchised if the delegates do get seated and people didn’t vote because their vote wasn’t supposed to count. And what on earth makes you think Hillary is concerned about voter disenfranchisement, didn’t you see what monster inc did in Nevada?
P.S. – Obama does not need a miracle on Tuesday, Hillary does. She has already lost, if she loses any of the remaining primaries she is SOL. As a matter of fact, she has to win every remaining contest by about 70% to even remain in the running, good luck with that.
May 2, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Clinton publicly stated that she would not remover her name because that would be terribly disrespectful to the voters."
Bullshit. She didn't start saying that until well after the fact, to try to justify her claim to those delegates. Here's what she said in NH:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PAjg
May 2, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just what do you think "shall not participate" means, exactly?
And, yes, Dodd and Kucinich should also have taken their names out.
May 2, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently Kucinich tried to get his name off the ballot:
http://www.essentialestrogen.com/2007/10/kucinich_campaign_misses_deadl.html
May 2, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't like the rules of the Party, no one is asking you to stay.
Maybe you should propose that Hillary pull a Lieberman. That'll show those Democrats who's boss! (Actually, I see that as a pretty strong possibility)
May 2, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude... both state legislatures passed a law that violated stated party rules. The democrats could have voted against it, but THEY DIDN'T. They disenfranchised themselves. Go ahead and change the rules for the next time around, but this mid-stream bullshit is utter nonsense and unfair for people who play by the rules.
My solution: split each delegation 50/50. This game would be over today, and it would put to bed your sham argument.
May 2, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
give it a rest.
Obama wasn't on the freakin ballot in MI. Give it a rest - it's settled and over with now. The DNC has decided how to handle it.
May 2, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are wrong. Sorry my friend.
If they aren't seated, then there's war at the convention.
May 2, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooo I'm worried.
why don't you go threaten Howard Dean.
May 2, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
don't worry - he'll have enough of a delegate lead that they can be seated as voted.
May 2, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No he wont
May 2, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure that I disagree with you, but the statement still strikes me as largely fatuous. Either candidate can make that claim. What matters is not whether s/he can make it, but whether it will ring true in the ears of the other candidate's supporters. In this respect, I think that both Clinton and Obama are in the same boat. I do not think that Clinton's people will regard his win as especially more "legitimate" than Obama's people would regard hers. This is evident in the way that they discount caucus results and stress certain primaries over others. MKyleM's point about FL and MI is also a worthy addition to that which I am trying to say here. It is hard to be much enthused about our chances for reconciliation regardless of which one wins at this point. We have let the poison flow for too long by this point.
May 2, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Simple solution: split ticket.
May 2, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh huh. So folks on your side keep telling me. What can I say, but that this simply sounds to my ears like so much whistling past the graveyard.
I am voting for whomever take the nomination, so I cannot speak to the mindset of the never-for-Clinton voters, but I am hard pressed to believe that any more than ~1.5% of them will be won back by Obama's name on the bottom of the ticket.
May 2, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't fret--everything will be fine. Hillary will eventually concede (I suspect that will come on Wednesday if she doesn't do well in Indiana and North Carolina). And when she concedes, she'll make a passionate plea to her supporters to back Obama. They'll call her a traitor, of course, and refuse to support her either. They'll be pissed, but give them a week of listening to the back and forth between Obama and McCain, and they'll be on board.
McCain sucks. He's the best argument there is against not voting or voting Republican this year.
May 2, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hm, with all due respect, this also sounds to me like whistling past the graveyard. McCain is not nearly the weak candidate that Billy Glad & al make him out to be. This is not to say that I think that he would be a great president, but as Al Gore and George W Bush proved (each in his own way), being a good leader is not the same as being a good candidate.
May 2, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe he's got a chance. I think he's a terrible candidate. He's a lousy public speaker, he's got a ton of bones in his closet, he's for the war, he's for the Bush tax cuts, he's old, he's dotty, he's cranky (he called his wife a c*nt in public), he's vastly unpopular with the Republican base--I could go on. I just don't think he's got a chance. Think about it: he's running against two Democratic candidates in a deeply divided party, and he's tying or losing to each of them in the polls. How's he going to do once we finally have a nominee? Lousy, that's how.
May 2, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's tying or losing to them in national average polls, but we do not elect our president based on a national average. He will run very well in the swing states which a republican needs to win. I am simply not convinced by the line which holds that we will win this election in a cake walk.
May 2, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never said it would be a cakewalk. I prefer the term "landslide." *:o)
May 2, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Andrew's switch raises a troubling issue for both campaigns. Superdelegates are free to switch sides, even if they have declared for one candidate.
And therein lies part of the answer as to how Hillary can win the nomination.
May 2, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately none of them are going to switch to Clinton. After perhaps the worst couple of weeks for the Obama campaign he's still wracking up the superdelegate totals. The handwriting is on the wall and the supers aren't stupid.
May 2, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I don't think they are stupid if they switch to Clinton. You can't win an election with only liberals and black people. Its just not possible.
They are capable of doing stupid things. The Democratic Party has willingly walked the plank many times before.
May 2, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
OOooooo - now I see where you are coming from.
I get it.
May 2, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Colorado: Obama 67% Clinton 32%
May 2, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very true. On the other hand, you do not win an election without liberals and black people, at least not if you are a democrat. In other words, for supers to nominate Obama might be a bad choice, but no worse than for them to nominate Clinton. Neither is in a particularly strong position at this point, now that the contest has been allowed to run to the point where each side desipises the other's very existence.
We may well have reached the point where "electability" is no longer the issue because neither can win. If that is the case, then the supers are not choosing who can win in 2008, but rather whose victory in this primary will do the least damage to the party going forward. With that in mind, I would point the reader to the realities of demographics - Obama's voters are younger, Clinton's are older. That is to say, pissing off Clinton's people will not matter 10 years hence when most of them are dead, but alienating Obama's people will doom the party for another generation.
May 2, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing like a big-picture view for some fresh air. Thank you, and I agree.
May 2, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only liberals and black people...
Well, then, why don't you go back to your conservative white people party and stop worrying about what happens with the Democrats.
May 2, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bless your heart!
I'm not going anywhere, sweety.
What I was describing is called a McGovern coalition. Understand? If you know history, you'll understand.
There's no way in hell a candidate will make it to teh presidency without working class white Americans. There is simply NO WAY!!!
Obama was rockin' with these people pre-Wright. But, now the damage is done.
Also, in case there is anyone here who doesn't know: REV. WRIGHT PLANS ON RELEASING A BOOK IN OCTOBER. That should give you all warm and fuzzies.
May 2, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are crazy. The white working class voter desserted Democrats LONG ago. They didn't vote for Bill Clinton, Gore or Kerrey.
Bill only won because of Perot splitting the vote and he won Illinois because a young Democrat registered 100K voters. That is when he met Wright as it was his parishoner Obama that won the WH for Clinton.
No Democrat needs the working class voter. They need everyone BUT them!! White working class voters vote GOP and they are going to continue doing that.
May 3, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can't look at it as a voter, but as a super delegate. They are looking at who can help them. Clinton? The insider who has turned this race into something resembling a Rove wet dream? Clinton who had a HUGE lead and then screwed it away, with all her money.
Or, Obama, who goes out and campaigns for people, has started a 50 state registration drive with the DNC and is bringing new people from different socioeconomic backgrounds to the Dem Party. They are looking for a future, not a past. Obama is the future and Clinton is the past.
Clinton only cares about Clinton.
May 2, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and for storage of cold water in a steel blast furnace as well.
May 2, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem though is that the defections, thusfar, have been exclusively one-way.
There have been multiple prominent Clinton supporters from the 90s that side with Obama, and a few notable defections during this campaign, but not one prominent defection from Obama to Clinton (other than the anectdotal "my friend switched to Clinton" stories ghost-written by Gotalife over on dKos).
May 2, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dream on. Watch today's vote (if it comes to a vote) in the Senate over Hillary's idiotic gas tax idea. You'll get a preview of how things are going to go with the superdelegates.
May 2, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Today's Daily Gallup poll supports the former DNC chairs' contention that Obama would be defeated by McCain.
May 2, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pass me the smellin salts, Mellie! If the Daily Gallup says he loses, I guess it's over.
May 2, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should simply decide the election today, then. Why even wait 6 months when we can find out today what will happen? Oh what should we do with the undecideds, give them to Perot?
Hey, what does Gallup say about the stock market in 6 months?
May 2, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really and truly, we could cut down on so much if we just did it all with experts, pundits and polls. We could do whole trials based on expert witnesses and polls of the police force.
We could do all elections that - we'd save so much time we could cut the work week to 4 days.
May 2, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
too bad for Hillary: polls don't win nominations, or she would have been nominated 18 months ago!
May 2, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a two way presidential contest, one candidate will always lose. Which one that will be can only be revealed after all the votes are counted in November. All the rest of the Clintonia blatherskiting about who can win and who can lose is just a big wind blowing out of Tuzla.
May 2, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This announcement emphasizes the pettiness in the Clinton mentality. It's on a par with the "I don't think he's really from Indiana" bullshit from Wolfson yesterday.
The whole "electability" issue is just plain stupid. Clinton isn't being attacked right now. Obama is getting hammered from Clinton, McCain, and the Axis of Imbecility.
Clinton's ratings right now are probably the absolute ceiling for her. She has nowhere to go but down.
Combine that with the fact that the only way for her to get the nomination is to overturn the pledged delegate count, and what you get is an argument for why she should suspend her campaign, not why she is electable.
May 2, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton's most lasting legacy within the party has to be his prodigious fundraising abilities. He was known until recently as the greatest democratic fundraiser of all time.
Obama has blown the Clintons out of the water, fundraising-wise. The guy's raising unbelievable amounts of cash, from mostly small, non-maxed donors.
As cynical as most of us are, and especially as cynical as the Hilary supporters are, you have to accept that the party is not going to walk away from Obama, the best fundraiser they've ever had.
Politics is driven by money in this country.
The Clinton campaign doesn't have enough. Their donor base is tapped.
THAT'S what the supers are looking at - when they face reelection, they want that money machine behind them. As does the party. We don't want a repeat of 2002 when we lost the majority in congress. We want that energy and excitement and yes, MONEY feeding democratic causes and candidates.
May 2, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
plus they are building the ranks of the party
like NO OTHER DEMOCRAT has ever done.
The Clinton's are jealous of Obama and
they are outraged that he is besting them
without the dirty vile nastiness that the
Clinton's have to use to get elected.
May 2, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't scare me! I am much bigger than you and protected by conservation treaties.
But Barack Obama unites us, mammal and fish, small food fan and big food fan . . .
May 2, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are sooo right.
I think I'll go give Obama some more money.
You are exactly right on the money sir. ;)
In America, one thing talks: money.
The Clintons know it and it's killing them.
May 2, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this above all else,....
....Money Talks!
May 2, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and keep in mind the HUGE database of grassroots supporters that Obama is compiling.
Which is better to have if you're building a party:
A) millions of dollars from corporate bigwigs and special interest groups who's support ebbs and flows in proportion to their assessment of your party/candidate's chances of winning?
OR
B) twice the amount of money from individual supporters who're passionate about their causes and follow up their cash donations with free labor (phone banks, canvassing, blogging, calling and e-mailing their friends, etc.) because they're committed to seeing their investments (contributions) paying off?
If I were a superdelegate committed to building and expanding the party, I'd think twice before turning my back on the Obama supporters.
Just sayin'.
May 2, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's introducing her gas tax "holiday" bill by the end of today. Joy of joys.
May 2, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
FREE GAS FOR EVERYONE! HILLARY '08!
May 2, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor thing.
The two DNCers who came out for Obama was have hurt much more than the media even knows.
None change her numbers or fool insiders.
That's the only thing than matters at this point.
And putting Rendell & McAuliffe on this list 'automatically' diminished any meaning it might have had, if there was any to be had.
May 2, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Greg -
Didi you post the letter from Joe Andrew in full?
May 2, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point.
May 2, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, dead guys support Hillary. Yoo hoo!!
May 2, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tomorrow they'll claim that FDR would've supported Clinton too.
May 2, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
They already claimed Ann Richards in Texas. Shameless.
May 2, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
All voters are not equal. Certain demographics are more important than others. It's true in TV ratings and it's true in politics.
Voters under 30 carry more weight that voters over 60 (I say this even though I'll be 60, sniff sniff, this year). The party wants to remain strong for many elections to come and to do that they need to bring in more and more fresh young voters.
That said, the party wants Obama, and my feeling is so do the superdelegates.
May 2, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right. The DNC has a chance to capture this moment and create alot of lifelong Democrats. To nominate Hillary risks alienating the new voters, young voters (and black voters) who have fallen hard for Barack.
If people over 60 can't vote for Barack because he is "inexperienced" (a BS claim when compared to Hillary, acceptable if your arguing McCain's experience) or because he's black (half-white, but whose counting?) then what the heck are we supposed to do?
Personally I see alot of older voters who are for Barack, but here in coastal CT they are usually well-to-do, so not sure thats a good sample. At any rate, this is shaping up to be a generational battle, a little like '68, with the War, public discontent, and a crazy democratic nomination process.
May 2, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone notice anything interest about the dates most of those people served as chairpersons? Detect any kind of a pattern?
May 2, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm... the dates seem to correspond with the decline of the Democratic Party's power.
Yeah, but they have EXPERIENCE, dammit!!!
May 2, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, it worked for East Germany. (Well, the landmines and machine gun towers helped, too.)
May 2, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What matters is not whether s/he can make it, but whether it will ring true in the ears of the other candidate's supporters.
Maybe this isn't how things work in politics, but it seems to me like whether it is true ought to matter regardless of who does or doesn't believe it.
May 2, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
...hooray for the TPM comment software!
May 2, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh sure, I agree. That is how it ought to work, but as you acknowledge in your first sentence, that is not as much as to say that this is how it does work in politics. The winner does not need merely to be legitimate; s/he must be perceived as legitimate, and I am increasingly given to the depressing conclusion that neither will be able to pull as much off in the end. It is a lead-pipe cinch that Obama's partisans will not view her victory as legitimate, but I think that it is increasingly clear in public opinion polls that her people will be equally unwilling to concede that he won legitimately.
May 2, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
They do too support me! They do!
May 2, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hahahaha!!!! "The Family of the late Ron Brown." That's beyond pathetic. What's next, "The Cousin of Joe Andrew"? Seriously, Hillary--give up.
May 2, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The brother of Vince Foster, perhaps?!
"I know that my brother Vince would've been immensely proud to stand here today, endorsing Hillary Clinton as our next president. It's unfortunate, really, that she had him killed..."
May 2, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This letter pretty much perfectly encapsulates everything that has turned me away from the Clinton campaign: the pettiness; the childish tit-for-tat; and, the ludicrousness of having Ron Brown's family involved.
It's the same as Howard Wolfson yesterday throwing out that Joe Andrews wasn't really from Indiana. Nothing more than a continual stream of gratuitous, self-serving, petty nonsense.
That's the killer for the Clinton campaign; none of this is NECESSARY. Just like Sen. Clinton's Bosnia sniper tale, and her subsequent responses, they can't leave well enough alone. Simply put--and what should be obvious by now; is that they don't know when to quit.
Don't worry Obama supporters. This is the worst time for the Clintons. Sen. Obama's getting killed by the media, Sen. Clinton believes she has a winner in the "gas-tax holiday" and is confidant that she will do well om Tuesday. That's a dangerous combination for the Clintons. They only excel when their backs are against the wall and everyone is counting them out. When things are going relatively well they self-destruct.
Sorry for the psychobabble, but I think there's enough in the public record that those points are almost beyond dispute.
May 2, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly what I don't get - none of this makes sense. Why are they doing this?
Can you imagine an administration run by this pair?
May 2, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The overall desperate tone of this memo shows that the good Mr. Andrews did indeed strike a nerve.
If any of you haven't read his letter yet, it's well worth the trip. Truly stunning IMHO.
http://www.indystar.com/assets/pdf/BG10716351.PDF
May 2, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
While we're doing a headcount of DNC chairs, here are all the surviving ones along with their endorsements. They're all superdelegates, with the possible exception of Curtis, whose status depends on the resolution of the FL controversy.
Summary: 7 Clinton; 5 Obama; 3 Uncommitted
Note that the DNC had a 2-chair system from 1995-2001.
May 2, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Intriguingly, the letter states flatly that "Hillary can win our Party's nomination." But it doesn't say how this can happen, beyond saying that she's strong in Indiana and North Carolina, that her campaign is pumping at full capacity in remaining states, and that record turnout is expected in them. . ."
That just shows the point of these antics. It's to try to persuade undecided superdels that it's *GOOD* not to commit to a candidate yet, because even though she doesn't have a chance of winning in any conventional sense, if she can keep them from putting Obama over the top, then maybe she can start to change the narrative of the race in Kentucky, Puerto Rico, etc.
Her hope is that by doing so, she'll get the SD's to reverse themselves, and commit disproportionately to her.
...nevermind that this would drive the black vote and the next generation of voters away from the Dems for a long time.
Really, it's a self-destructive argument to ask the Democratic Party to make, because most of the party leaders want to start fundraising for the big battle against McCain, both for their presidential candidate's coffer's, but for all the other Democrats too.
... and when you add on Clinton's "with us or against us" bread-and-circuses gas tax threat, she's really coming off as behaving in a pretty threatening manner to a lot of these superdelegates, and I just can't see them reward her for that kind of behavior.
May 2, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) How many of these people are superdelegates?
2) Is she taking credit for "record turnouts"?
3) How come they still ran out of ballots when
they expected record turnouts? What's the
problem with printing twice as many ballots?
~ Jess
May 2, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ken Curtis, former governor of Maine, should be voting with his state, which was strongly for Obama in the Maine caucuses. We had record turnouts and the final vote was 60%/Obama to 40%/Clinton.
Maine, incidentally, is one of the caucus states that Clinton doesn't choose to count in her bogus 'popular vote' calculations.
One more example of intellectual dishonesty.
May 3, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
corporal greg, good work. we will destroy the party yet.
May 3, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink