Obama Gains More Super-Delegates, AP Says He Now Leads
Today was another good day Barack Obama on the super-delegate front, with a net gain of five over Hillary Clinton. According to the Associated Press count, he now leads in super-delegate support by a margin of 276-271.5.
The Obama campaign today announced the support of add-on delegates Kristi Cumming of Utah and Dave Regan of Ohio, Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ), and DNC member Carole Burke of the Virgin Islands.
Clinton meanwhile picked up add-on delegate Arthur Powell of Massachusetts. But that gain was offset when she lost the support of DNC member Kevin Rodriquez of the Virgin Islands, who defected from Clinton to Obama.
Clinton-backing super-del Don Fowler of South Carolina bluntly told the AP, "The trickle is going to become an avalanche."
According to the Obama campaign's numbers, he is 156 delegates away from clinching the nomination.
Comments (102)
It must SUCK being Hillary Clinton these days.
May 11, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
It must REALLY suck to be Bill these days.
May 11, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wall Street Journal editorial hits the broken nail on the head:
No, we don't mean Bill and Hillary. We mean the separation now under way between the Clintons and the Democratic Party. Like all divorces after lengthy unions, this one is painful and has had its moments of reconciliation, but after Tuesday a split looks inevitable. The long co-dependency is over....
If the Clintons play to their historic form, they will ignore all this for as long as they can. They will fight on, hoping that something else turns up about Mr. Obama before the convention. Or they'll try to play the Michigan and Florida cards. Or they'll unleash Harold Ickes on the superdelegates and suggest that if Mr. Obama loses in November she'll be back in 2012 and her revenge will be, well, Clintonian.
The difference between now and the 1990s, however, is that this time the Clinton foes aren't the "vast right-wing conspiracy." This time the conspirators are fellow Democrats. It took 10 years, but you might say Democrats have finally voted to impeach.
May 11, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. That should have all been in quotes.
May 11, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting that this is framed as a break between the Clintons and the Democratic Party. As if it's the Democratic Party's fault that HRC didn't win the nomination? Did the Party somehow fail her?
May 11, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. While I don't disagree with much of what they wrote, consider the source. The Wall Street Journal is trying to frame this as "Democrats suddenly realize we were right about the Clintons all along." For all the objectionable, sleazy ways the Hillary campaign has been run and all the stupid things she and Bill have said, Bill was still a good president overall, despite his many flaws, and Hillary could have made decent president, though not nearly as great as Obama will be. Now that the race is really over, I just feel like it makes sense to take a bigger picture perspective.
May 11, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill turns out to have been a so-so President. Unlike Bush, his policy choices didn't have immediate, short term affects to judge him by.
Looking back, his policies were almost as damaging.
NAFTA for one.
But his relaxing of banking regulations is why we're in the mess we're in now with mortgages and credit markets.
Billy was the one who rescinded FDR's protections after the Great Depression. Not Bush.
These two issues along have been the driving forces of our long term, economic down turn.
So in the short terms, it looked like Billy was a good Pres. Underneath and in retrospect however, not so much.
As for Hillary... she has proven EVERY, SINGLE right-wing meme to be true....and then some.
I hope she's primaried. Her behavior has been despicable. I hope she loses her senate seat and crawls off into political oblivion in 2012.
May 11, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, one more thing:
"Billy was the one who rescinded FDR's protections after the Great Depression."
He did this becuase Citibank asked him too. In a n effort to have the financial industry come support Democrats, he gave the baby away with the bath water (like Feinstein & Rockefeller keep trying to do with banking and telecoms co's.).
May 11, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do make a very fair point here -- one that needs to get more attention than it has.
May 11, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your point about the Wall Street Journal still stands though.
I don't imagine they were railing from the heavens to stop Citibank from getting its way. If Clinton's image is tarnished by the mess deregulation has made, the WSJ should lose some (more) of its lustre for promoting it.
May 11, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, the tech-boomy/zero deficit/red-hot economy of the Clinton Years was downright odious compared to these salad-days at the dawn of the 21st Century.
Bill was no holy man, and Lord knows he had his defects, but life was good while he was in office, and his mistakes were more damaging to him than to the country.
It can hardly be said that he "got it wrong" in his administration of the peoples business, and it's unfair to infer that he was just lucky.
And, if we are to compare acronyms, I match your NAFTA with my WMD, GDP or WTF anytime!
I'm so sick of Bush that I no longer have the strength to hate him. I have no use for Hillary, and I lament the low state to which her husband has brought himself in her service.
And while I regret his former boorishness as much as his current loutishness, I will never forget what a hoot it was, back in the day, when busboys drank champagne, receptionists traveled in sports cars, and everybody's refrigerator was made of brushed aluminum.
May 12, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. Similar to Sully. I think it's important to separate the wheat (lots of good stuff about Hillary and Bill) from the chaff (plenty of not so good stuff about Hillary and Bill), and not swallow all of this WSJ argument.
May 11, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is playing this game brilliantly so that it will be the voters in Oregon (after West Virginia and Kentucky loss) who will put him over the top and not the SD's.
May 11, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant indeed. Dispels the impression of back-room deals; gives Oregon a sense of pride that they will hopefully use in November as well. His offer to pay off her debts makes him (rightfully) look magnanimous to her disappointed supporters. Massive voter registration drive begins too. The supers must be appreciating his astute management of all his assets for the benefit of the party.
All this good news has got me singing the Beatles' "Good Day, Sunshine." :)
May 11, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
His visit to the House was an excellent PR ploy and in direct contrast to her way of wooing the SD's over conference calls. He has pivoted away from her already. Aikido indeed.
May 11, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean Obama-Jitsu ;-)
May 11, 2008 3:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Barakarate!
May 11, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you provide a link to where Obama offered to pay Clinton's campaign debts?
May 11, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/obama-wont-rule-out-easing-clinton-campaign-debt/#more-5080
May 11, 2008 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
You need to also read the "update on debt" in the Caucus blog, which has a misleading headline (to attract traffic ?)
Short version: It ain't happenin'. So relax. I am positive he has got that all figured out so that both sides will come out winners.
May 11, 2008 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, thanks Stemper and amk. That was what I was hoping to point out here. I haven't seen where Obama has actually offered to pay off Clinton's debts (although this headline would lead you to believe otherwise). But, this is what the campaign is actually saying at this point:
So, it appears that if he were to agree to be of assistance to her at all in this regard, it would be to appear with her in some joint fundraising efforts to retire her debt.
Now, why he would agree to do that, when he has some considerable fundraising challenges of his own ahead of him...I don't know. But, that's for him to decide.
Me, personally? I won't be donating to Hillary in the near future.
May 11, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
He can't pay Clinton's campaign debt. It's illegal.
May 11, 2008 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. The way it would happen is that he would use his fundraising apparatus collect money for the explicit purpose of paying off her debt. McCain's fundraisers did the same thing for Giuliani.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/04/14/mccain_helps_former_rival_retire_debt/8092/
May 11, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be SHOCKED if any of the 1.5MM people who gave to the campaign were willing to pony-up to pay off her debt, especially when she's continuing to incur it at his expense.
May 11, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd contribute to pay the venues, printers, other small vendors and ground-level campaign staffers. Not a dime to Wolfson, Ickes, Penn or to pay off her loans.
May 12, 2008 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you might be right. I've heard this before, but kind of doubted it. Mainly because I didn't think he'd be able to coordinate all the various supers well enough to keep the trickle going without turning it into a flood that would put him over the top too soon. But I'm finding myself more and more impressed with his political skills as time goes by. He's turning into a master at this. Maybe the best I've seen in my lifetime. I almost pity McCain.
May 11, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
They'll do the same thing in the general. It's chess. They'll line up the electoral votes in a way that will leave the Republicans scrambling for their trousers. By then it will be too late. These people know what they're doing.
May 11, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is self-evidently, indubitably, incontrovertibly, irreducibly, and indelibly the case is that...
THIS
May 11, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
IS
May 11, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
EXCELLENT
May 11, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can I play? Can I play?
EXCELLENT
May 11, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
NEWS
May 11, 2008 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
FOR
May 11, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
HILLARY?
May 11, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 11, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
NOT OVER YET!
May 11, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Game Over!
May 11, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
NOT OVER YET.
May 11, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe not. But I just saw a woman go into the warm up room backstage and, lemme tell you, she's got some girth.
May 11, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I loved that :)
May 11, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah no kidding Ron Paul could still win the Republican nomination. Just as good of a shot as Hillary.
May 11, 2008 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Gore has a better shot at the Democratic nomination than Hillary. In the sort of brokered-convention scenarios that are Hillary's last gasp chance, the delegates would find it easier to converge on someone like Gore who could unify the party, rather than a divisive figure who endorsed the Republican opponent, who has favorability numbers hovering just above a fourteen-year low, and who ran such a poor campaign that she squandered all of her huge advantages to end up running second to a freshman Senator with "Hussein" for a middle name.
May 11, 2008 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's ALL O-VER!
Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom!
May 11, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not. But her path to victory has slightly better odds than you or I getting the Democratic Party nomination.
May 11, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have my support.
Take from that statement what you will ;)
May 11, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Get Over It!
May 11, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frank Rich at NYT
More here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/opinion/11rich.html?ref=opinion”
May 11, 2008 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now if Obama could only nominate a gal for veep, but not Hillary...
May 11, 2008 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Janet Napalitano
May 11, 2008 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it's going to be a female runnimgmate, it will be Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS).
May 11, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ideally, she would be great. In reality, he has to appeal to white men who aren't sure he is "man" enough, so I'm thinking a white southerner with some foreign policy/defense background--Sam Nunn, for example. The calculus gets very different in the general election.
May 11, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
No offense, but please, anyone but Sam Nunn. He would do for Obama what Bentsen did for Dukakis -- absolutely nothing! He's a conservative corporate status quo Democrat who would undermine Obama's message rather than add to it and bring with him no constituency outside of corporate boardrooms. If you want "a white southerner with some foreign policy/defense background" Jim Webb fits the bill perfectly -- his economic populism will play well with working class voters and he could move Virginia into the Democratic column -- and Wesley Clark would be good, too. Bob Graham, as noted elsewhere here, would also be an intriguing possibility.
May 11, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I hear ya. I'm in MD and have watched Webb. He's good. A little of a loose cannon but impressive. Graham looks good too.
May 11, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Evan Bayh or Jim Webb.
Pig out.
May 11, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Webb would be a double slap in the face to Hillary's women supporters. Vulnerable on it too.
May 11, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The democratic party's divorce from the Clintons is way past due. The Clinton legacy was eight years of Bush/Cheney which brought the country to its knees. They will never live that down. The only good thing about their legacy is that the Obama administration will begin with next to nothing at the FDA, EPA, DOE, DOJ, FCC, FEC, etc. and build departments and offices that do what they're supposed to. Obama has demonstrated time and again he has the savvy to lead the country to do better. Thanks to the Clinton legacy we're scraping the bottom. There's no place to go but up.
May 11, 2008 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, yes, yes, yes, CindyMax. I work with a Federal Agency here in DC and they have been anticipating a change in administration for well over a year now (and people in key positions have been quietly moving on to other positions for that long, reorganizing, preparing for the inevitable). Lots of hurrying to try to get favored Bush programs and policies firmly in place. Others who have been suffering through the current administration are giddy with excitement at fresh leadership. We're all looking forward eagerly to the passing of the torch.
May 11, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The trickle is going to become an avalanche."
Mixed metaphors.
May 11, 2008 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's Spring, snow is melting (or maybe Hell is warming up again)
May 11, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reporting for duty!
May 11, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure it matter all that much in the final analysis, but when will it be accepted that Hon. Sen. Obama has taken the lead in superdelegates? when half of the networks' tallies show this? 3/4?
May 11, 2008 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the Obama tide continues inexorably toward the Democratic nomination.
Yeah baby!
May 11, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! Bush bashing is good, we need more of it.
May 11, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 11, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
damn, that was supposed to be part of the wave.
May 11, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again!:)
I like it better out of order. It carries a bigger punch.
May 11, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
He can't choose a black VP, because well, Great America can't handle that much change. He can't choose a Latino, because well we'll open the borders and well too much minorities will be nominated for positions in his administration. He can't choose a WOMAN that's not a Clinton, because well, Hillary's supporters will be PISSED. He might choose one to calm down the feminists, but they won't be happy ending up in second place. Obama's rumming mate will be a MAN and he'll be WHITE.
May 11, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Former Sen. Bob Graham (D -FL)
Former Gov. Bob Graham (D -FL)
Member United Church of Christ Bob Graham (D -FL)
Former Pres. candidate Bob Graham (D -FL)
Former Chairman Intelligence Committee Bob Graham (D -FL)
Beat Charlie Crist (current Gov. R -FL) 63-37 for Senate seat
Have I mentioned that Bob Graham would seal the deal? He puts FL in play, perhaps neighboring GA and SC and NC as well. Many think that had Gore picked Graham, instead of Lieberman, he would have easily won the election. Many more think that had Kerry gone with Graham (his 2nd choice) he too would've beaten George Bush.
Maybe it's time to pick this guy and take back FL and perhaps the South???
May 11, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good one!
May 11, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
absolutely. and graham had the intelligence, as it were, to vote against the iraq catastrophuck. unlike some senators i could name.
May 11, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
but he's older than mcWar (b.1936)
May 11, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's the downside. The media couldn't attack McWar's age without bringing up Graham's.
However, technically Graham is younger than McCain
August 29, 1936 John Sidney McCain
November 9, 1936 Bob Graham
If McCain is qualified to be POTUS, Graham is more so...
May 11, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
y'know, on second thought, graham's age could be a good thing. obama can prove he's not ageist: "Not all old people lose their marbles, er bearings. Bob Graham certainly hasn't." etc. and a veep who most likely will not run for president would have a lot of support among those who might want to run in '16. also would ease the minds of a lot of "experience" fetishists. and grahampa's still very popular in florida, which would be a good state to win. all in all a capital idea!
OBAMA/GRAHAM '08
May 11, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. Hadn't thought of him. I think I like.
May 11, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
What joshua said. Wow! Where has my head been? He would be an excellent choice!
May 11, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was the recent PBS Frontline 2 part documentary on the Iraq War where I saw Graham interviewed. He related how he read the 2002 Iraq NIE and how it made him sick (Take that, Hillary).
He had my instant respect.
May 12, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I sorta disagree on the Hispanic one. He could choose Richardson who, I think, would be a great addition. After all, the people who are freaking out about all the brown people coming across the border are pretty much gonna vote Republican anyway. And Richardson could easily deliver New Mexico and, with their huge Latino communities, could have Arizona and Texas in play. At least enough to force McCain to waster resources in them.
May 11, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Terry McAuliffe is on Meet the Press talking about how the magic number of delegates is 2,209. Where are they coming up with this? What magic math are they inventing now? The number is 2,025, right? What did I miss?
May 11, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nevermind -- Russert actually asked the question. The Clinton campaign is now counting Michigan and Florida. I should've guessed that.
May 11, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's time to stop giving these people airtime. Not news anymore. Nothing to see here, people. Move along...
May 11, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of McAuliffe, I also watched him on MTP this morning. I also caught a few minutes of Wolfson on Fox (I was at the gym watching a bank of TVs) and got to thinking. . .
PRIMARY SEASON FINAL EXAM - ESSAY QUESTION
Who is the bigger tool: Terry McAuliffe or Howard Wolfson? Explain your answer.
May 11, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Answer: Trick question.
Both are infinite tools.
There's no number larger than infinity, thus, they are equal and total tools.
May 11, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he picks Richardson, any chance we'd win Texas? Any other candidates who would help us as much in Texas?
If Texas gets added to the Blue States, the Rs have a very tough battle for many years.
May 11, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
May 11, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, no, no! Doesn't anyone remember when she gave the Democratic rebuttal after the State of the Union? She may be a good Democrat, but she is about as dynamic as Harry Reid. The Democratic Party needs someone that really is a great campaigner, communicator and connects with people. Anyone that falls short will look even more lacking when compared with Obama's skills.
May 11, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why The Dems Could Lose
By Cokie and Steve Roberts
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Democrats seem intent on nominating Barack Obama, in the face of mounting evidence that Hillary Clinton would be the stronger candidate against John McCain in November. And they only have themselves to blame.
May 11, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
anyone who listens to cokie roberts needs to get out of wahington more. ditto her quasijournalist husband and superlobbyist brother.
May 11, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, what about Jim Webb? He'd help put Virginia in play, he'd bring military, foreign-policy experience, he'd appeal to those white male voters, but most of all, he was REGAN's secretary of the Navy. He'd help seal the post-partisan branding and at the same time, give the Democrats a conversion narrative - like the one Regan used to great effect.
May 11, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
No basis for this but I think it will be Webb. All the things you mention, plus he seems really at home in his skin and strikes me as the type of person that would slide easily into the Obama fold.
May 11, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Webb would complement Obama's strengths.
May 11, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
also, if webb were on the ticket, we'd get a lot of questions why mcWar hasn't endorsed the bipartisan GI Bill (questions from webb, i mean. the media could care less about such things.)
May 11, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Webb's response to the state of the union speech in Jan. 2007 was a thing of beauty. A brilliant fusion of truth telling on Iraq and economic populism.
I can see him playing the attack dog role quite well. No way McCain could paint a fellow Vietnam vet -- a member of the administration of St. Ronnie no less -- as soft on security.
But Obama may not want to endanger Webb's Senate seat when one vote may make the difference. I'd respect that judgment too.
May 12, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
When will she be Huckabeed?
May 11, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What happened to the other .5 of the .5 in 271.5 superdelegate that Hillary has?
May 11, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think Hillary had a half a delegate done away with? Wouldn't surprise me.
Democrats abroad get like 3, or maybe more half delegates. I think Obama got a bunch of them and Hillary got a half or one and a half.
May 11, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
On Richardson. I really like and admire him a lot. But, and this is not at all a secret slur, I have heard rumors that he, perhaps, likes the ladies a little too much? To anyone in New Mexico? Is this a slur put forth early in the campaign?
May 11, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read that somewhere also, but I haven't heard anymore about it.
I like Richardson a lot - he would help consolidate the hispanic base behind Obama and brings a lot of foreign policy experience to the ticket - but I'm still not completely sold. I saw him on MTP early in the primary while he was still running and I felt like he got smacked around a little too easily. I think that Obama's going to definitely need an attack-dog in the role. (I will say, though, that I have seen him on several shows recently advocating on behalf of Obama and felt like he's done a much better job). I'm also a little concerned about all of the stories about him claiming to have been drafted into MLB - it just brings up the whole Al Gore claims to have invented the internet nightmare.
May 11, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahahahahahahahaha.
Sure it is.
Fog, according to the time stamps, this campaign has you talking to yourself.
And we can all imagine how painful that must be.
May 11, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alright Harry!
Harry Mitchell was my Economics teacher at Tempe High in 1974. He's a good guy and a dedicated Democrat. He took that seat from a conservative radio loudmouth in 2006.
Give 'em hell Harry!
May 11, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Webb has yet to committ to either Obama or Clinton. As a Virginian who gladly voted for Webb over George Spittoon Allen (R-Macacca) , I think Obama could do better for a VP choice.
May 11, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink