« Club For Growth Airing New Ad In Key Senate Race, Attacking S-CHIP | Home | Rasmussen: Oregon GOP Senator Only Narrowly Ahead Of Two Dems »
Obama, Clinton Each Get Another Super-Delegate
Two more super-delegates have endorsed late today, in addition to those we reported on this afternoon, with one new super-del for Barack Obama and one for Hillary Clinton.
Virginia DNC member Joe Johnson announced his support for Barack Obama, while Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX) has endorsed Hillary.
The score for today: Obama +9, Hillary net +1. Obama is now roughly tied with Clinton for super-delegate support and only needs about 160 more total delegates to clinch the nomination.
Advertisement
Comments (63)
If I was a Hillary supporter tonight, I'd send an angry email to a super delegate saying me and Harvey Weinstein are gonna break his legs if he doesn't support Hillary.
It's worked pretty good so far.
May 10, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Having seen the trailer for There Will Be Blood, I have no doubt you could do it! I myself ain't messing with you. :)
May 10, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
This trickle of endorsements is turning into a steady stream. Good for Obama for a record day, and good for Clinton for getting an endorsement.
May 10, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
At this point, whenever I hear of Hillary getting an endorsement I picture some poor sucker being dangled off a hotel balcony by his ankles.
May 10, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not Mount Everest, Sir Edmund?
May 10, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is more like "bagging" him/her, as Greg loves to say.
May 10, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm looking at the charts over here (may not be up to date):
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/
165 - Number of delegates Obama needs to win
255 - Number of supers remaining
327 - Number of delegates Clinton needs to win
Numbers are fun.
May 10, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
don't forget the 217 voter delegates left. and the 19 edwards delegates.
May 10, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are absolutely right. But the thing that jumped out to me is that the remaining superdels could put Obama over the top tomorrow. Not so for Clinton.
Of course, it doesn't mean anything. It's just a way of looking at things.
May 10, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even if Clinton won 60% of the remaining pledged and 65% of the supers she still wouldn't win.
But as Obama points out on his website, he only needs 33 delgates to secure the lead in pledged - that is only 16% of the remaining. After that the supers need to overturn the voting process to give Clinton a win.
Math is wonderful!
May 10, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nostalgia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPijibzAwVw
May 10, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
nananana nananana hey hey hey goodbye.
May 10, 2008 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are these idiots endorsing a candidate who already lost?
Damn, I wonder if I can get my Rodriguez donations back on grounds of stupidity.
May 10, 2008 6:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
"At this point, whenever I hear of Hillary getting an endorsement I picture some poor sucker being dangled off a hotel balcony by his ankles"
You mean like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZHbW-6Yjek
"Is that how you used to run the good cop bad cop?"
May 10, 2008 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! Exactly.
May 10, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blue in Colorado, Ciro Rodriguez was the first candidate outside of my state, VA, whose campaign I donated to. What a blue dog he turned out to be. Darcy Burner, though, was a good investment.
I've been reading here for months, but haven't written anything. Except for the resident trolls, the comments section is great.
May 10, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Glad you decided to break your silence.
LOL Every board needs resident trolls. It's like ghosts in the attic or the scary thing in the basement. It gives the place character ;-)
May 10, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I gave up on Obama taking the lead on any issue so I will make it easy for him like you do.
Lets see him unite the party.
Easy enough.
Go Obama, unite us.
May 10, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
But you're a Freeper always quoting NRO and LGF.
For Obama to unite you, he'd have to turn into Zombie Reagan and promise tax cuts for the rich and an increase in military spending on Star Wars Battlestar Galactica and other 70s Sci-Fi programs.
May 10, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please, don't feed the trolls.
May 10, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Obama started working on the unification of the Party during his victory speech in North Carolina. He showed grace, honor and restraint.
Several hours later, Clinton delivered another screed of "I".
Considering the flow of super delagates . . . America felt that viscerally.
Don't get me wrong . . . Clinton is helping to heal the rift also . . . The next morning she publically threw away the color-blinders to insure that people would flock to Obama.
May 10, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is so true. With Obama it is WE and with Clinton it's ME.
May 10, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton's Emancipation Proclamation:
White Power Points The Way.
May 10, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Still with Clinton.
It's not over until she says it's over.
Once again, she controls the message and Obama can only react.
May 10, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
She is the leader and Obama has not taken the lead on a single issue.
Lets see him back up his kool aid and unite the party.
May 10, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he take the lead in the "Hillary and McCain are full of shit about the gas tax holiday" issue?
May 10, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it bashed it and did not propose anything.
He is not a leader.
May 10, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
He led. Instead of following like Clinton, he called bullshit on a bullshit idea. If you understood supply and demand, you'd know it was a bullshit idea too.
May 10, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, don't feed the trolls.
May 10, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Hillary simply follow McCain's lead on the gas tax holiday?
Another question, a hypothetical.
If your country is headed towards a conflict with another nation would you:
a) read the available classified evidence before making a vote which could 'theoretically' lead to thousands of lost lives and billions of dollars.
b) vote "yes" because it makes you look tough and more electable in your future political aspirations.
Part II: When your country is headed towards a conflict with a neighboring nation to the one you've already authorized military force against and there's already evidence that said country ISN'T working on a nuclear weapon would you:
a) vote "yes" that their military is a terrorist organization
b) threaten to obliterate them
c) both a) and b)
d) take a nuanced and rational position based upon realities on the ground.
I can tell you with certainty that Obama passed this test. How did your candidate (Clinton or McCain) do???
May 10, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's sweet. i'm still with jerry brown and bill bradley. (i always wondered what it felt like when your guy won the nomination; not bad.)
May 10, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about when your candidate is on the verge of winning the nomination, and, you are enthusiastic in a way that wouldn't have seemed possible?
Priceless.
May 10, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
No nomination is over until the nominee is officially declared. Message control has nothing to do with it. You are speaking in widgets.
May 10, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny...
the discussion in the MSM is Obama vs. McCain on Bearings and Hamas.
Hillary ain't controlling shit.
May 10, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, yeah. She really controlling the message now.
LOL!!!!
May 10, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
David Duke to Hillary Clinton:
"You had me at White Americans."
May 10, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL.
May 10, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama get another add-on super delegate:
May 10, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Half a delegate away now to tie with Senator Clinton. Interesting, he is totally ignoring WV.
May 10, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Kentucky.
He will get crushed in both States.
Add Florida, Michigan and the other big States and you get President Mcwar.
Nothing will change, it will get worse.
Nice job.
May 10, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just in the same way Hillary was crushed in 12 states back to back following super tuesday and then Wyoming and then MS and then NC....In fact Obama won more than 20 states with a margin of 20 points. Hillary won OK, AK, now WN and KY- that's 20+ to 4.
Hell is the other way dude.
May 10, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, don't feed the trolls.
May 10, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Obama wins, are you going to spend the next 8 years being a doom and gloomer?
If so, can you please forget how the use the internets?
Thanks in advance.
May 10, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
From your lips....
May 10, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm all for ignoring them.
If he campaigns hard it wouldn't have changed much in such a short period of time, so by not going all out, it removes HRC's claim that "he campaigned hard & lost. He can't win whites in November!" meme.
NOt that she still won' try, but supers won't be buying it, the media has already moved on & don't expect him to come close and his not campaigning there will be part of the story when he loses.
It's actually very smart of him.
Of course idiots like gotalife are banging their heads against the wall screaming 'it's unfair, it's unfair', but that just gives me some added pleasure! ;-)
Oregon is the only state he should be paying attention too right now. It has the most delegates and it's ONLY the delegates that matter.
May 10, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's not ignoring them. He has 10 offices in WV and he'll be visiting on Monday. Also, he made a least one stop in Charleston back before North Carolina and Indiana.
I'm sure he'll be in Kentucky next week, since he just did a run through Oregon.
May 10, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stand corrected. 'Ignoring' really doesn't describe how he's working those states.
It certainly isn't like her worked Indiana though. That's more of my point.
But you're right, he isn't 'ignoring' it.
May 10, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel better about that. 50 State strategy requires follow through. All States count. And he needs to develop his message and his strategies, work out the issues, and find ways to reach out to all demographics.
May 10, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. Make that the "57 state strategy".
May 10, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"He" who? Obama's doing campaign stops in WV. He was there last month doing campaign stops. Is that "totally ignoring WV"?
May 10, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, yeah. She really controlling the message now.
LOL!!!!
May 10, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI, Arkansas is AR and West Virginia is WV, FWIW.
May 10, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boston Globe.
Read it all at:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/10/clintons_diminishing_of_black_voters/
DERRICK Z. JACKSON
Clinton's diminishing of black voters
By Derrick Z. Jackson, Globe Columnist | May 10, 2008
IN HER long, sad self-diminution to being merely a white candidate for subsegments of white people, Hillary Clinton claimed to USA Today this week, "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on." Clinton exploited an Associated Press poll to say how "Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me . . . There's a pattern emerging here."
This was on top of Democratic strategist and Clinton supporter Paul Begala saying this week on CNN, "We cannot win with eggheads and African-Americans. OK. That's the Dukakis coalition, which carried 10 states and gave us four years of the first George Bush. President Clinton, you know, reached across and got a whole lot of Republicans and independents to come."
This reaches across the aisle all right, straight to right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh, who has been urging people to vote for Clinton to prolong the Democratic primaries, said this week, "Barack Obama has shown he cannot get the votes that Democrats need to win: blue-collar working people. He can get effete snobs. He can get wealthy academics and he can get the young, he can get the black vote, that's about it."
Obama just got done being tarred and feathered as an elitist by Clinton and the talk shows for belittling "bitter" people in jobless small towns who "cling to guns or religion." Yes, that was dumb.
Yet here is Clinton dancing all over stereotypes. There is no way you can say in the same sentence, "hard-working Americans, white Americans," without diminishing black Americans as lazy.
May 10, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that is pure bullshit...from a black writer who either fails at comprehension or is intentionally enflaming a race war.
Unifier indeed.
Let's be clear here. what Clinton would have preferred to say was:
"hard-working voters" but blacks for Obama , who of course are voting soley based on race, would clain they are hard-working. So in order to make a claim about a demographic she needed to qualify it with "white".
End of story except that race-baiting Obamites want to once again play the race card.
May 10, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
These folks disagree with you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UJYAo5o3Fs&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/10/13278/8632/332/513271
May 10, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's be clear here. what Clinton would have preferred to say was:
"hard-working voters" but blacks for Obama , who of course are voting soley based on race, would clain they are hard-working. So in order to make a claim about a demographic she needed to qualify it with "white".
I think Hillary said exactly what she wanted to say. The term 'hard working whites' is a direct appeal to whites who think blacks dont work hard. Just listen to any David Duke speech or Rush rant, and you'll hear it repeately. All she has left in her campaign is to suck up to those voters.
As for calling blacks who choose Obama racist, the accusation tells us a great deal about the person making the accusation. It assumes blacks can't make a logical decision. It says blacks, who had to wait 300 years for the chance to even vote for a white guy, and 50 more for a truly inspirational black one, are racist for supporting him. Racist hate based on skin color, but blacks voted 83% for Bill Clinton. Why would they do that if they hate whites? They'd just stay home. Racism isn't defined by expressing love for anyone, its defined as putting down people because of their race. There is zero evidence that blacks are voting against Hillary because she is white, they just like Obama better.
However when all groups of white democrats except the old and undereducated choose Barak, it seems a plausible conclusion that some of them are stuck in America's racist past. I base this assumption on the fact that her blue collar support is strongest in places known, historically for being hostile to blacks...like that 70% white vote in Mississippi, the "Alabama in the middle" part of Pennsylvania, and my home state of Oklahoma. Very white places without that reputation, like Iowa and Wisconsin, when for Obama big time. His lack of strength in Appalachia tells us way more about the people who live there than it does about him.
Obama leads Hill in every demographic under age 65. Take away the blue collar white demo, and she has nothing left. The fact that she is willing to make blatant racist appeals to them tells us just how low she will go. Stirring up the Black-Brown divide in Texas and California, sucking up to Scaiffe, Limbaugh, and Bill-O, people who called her a murderer, wasn't bad enough. I
Its a shame the woman has no shame. If Satan showed up with a contract, is there any doubt she'd sign it?
May 10, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
First you are the one using the term racist. And that is revealing.
Secondly, blacks are making a conclusion which goes like this: the black guy is better for blacks because he's black.
Third, Clinton's statement was accurate.
May 10, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not true that Obama has not been the leader . . .
In fact, when all five Senators running for President scampered out of Washington in order to avoid voting on the Mukasey nomination . . . Obama stepped up and told America that his voice and vote did not matter while the other four hid under their beds.
May 10, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama needs to express himself more directly. In response to Clinton's race baiting, why didn't he just say, "No American voter is worth any more or less than any other American voter."
In response to McCain's ridiculous comments about Hamas, why can't Obama just say, "Hamas is a terrorist organization. I oppose recognition of any terrorist organization." Or, "John McCain supports Bush's war in Iraq that has resulted in hundreds of terrorist attacks on U.S. troops."
Why the elaborate circumlocutions? Hopefully he will tighten up his rhetoric over the next couple of months.
May 10, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm confused by Obama's most recent Super Delegate from NJ whom is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus(CBS). For that matter I don't understand why any of Obama's Congressional Black Caucus super delegates supporting him closed down the House of Representatives on Thursday by refusing to fund the war. They sent Speaker of the House Pelosi home for the weekend mumbling about war funding. The CBS unanimously vowed to not authorize one penny for the Iraq War but then they run off to support Obama, who wants to spend a couple more years in Iraq. If they support Obama then they should support War Funding or if they support not funding the war then they should support Hillary. Where am I going wrong here?
May 10, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm confused by Obama's most recent Super Delegate from NJ whom is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus(CBS). For that matter I don't understand why any of Obama's Congressional Black Caucus super delegates supporting him closed down the House of Representatives on Thursday by refusing to fund the war. They sent Speaker of the House Pelosi home for the weekend mumbling about war funding. The CBS unanimously vowed to not authorize one penny for the Iraq War but then they run off to support Obama, who wants to spend a couple more years in Iraq. If they support Obama then they should support War Funding or if they support not funding the war then they should support Hillary. Where am I going wrong here?
May 10, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blue Dog Democrats and Congressional Black Caucus do not want to fund the war in Iraq but both groups have super delegates supporting Obama who wants to stay in Iraq for two years. Why are these two faced politicians not challenged by the press?
Next week Obama super delegates in these caucuses will vote against war funding, war funding Obama requires to accomplish his campaign promises.
May 11, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh brother, how ridiculous. Michelle has led about as codled an existence as is humanly possible in this life. As a beneficiary of affirmative action, she gets a free ride to Princeton and HLS. As un undergraduate, she writes her thesis on the predictable and academically worthless topic, "Princeton Educated Blacks," as opposed to something substantive or that would require her to reach far beyond her own bubble existence. And doubtlessly at Princeton and HLS she was doted upon for being "special," i.e. a black person who can write and speak passable English. She gets a legal education at Harvard, in order to become the Director of External Affairs for a hospital, essentially a flack-PR job. And despite being showered with expensive education, which she has put to negligible use, she thinks the US (of the KKK of A!) has been insufficiently generous to her.
well, screw Michelle.
on another topic, screw Tibet too. Tibet is a sovereign Chinese affair, and no business of busybodies like you fools.
May 12, 2008 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink