Uncommitted Super-Del: How Could I Tell My Black Constituents I'm Backing Hillary?
The uncommitted super-delegates are rarely candid about this publicly, but one of the key reasons they feel pressure to back Barack Obama is that as elected officials, they are themselves dependent on black voters -- so picking Hillary at this point solely on the basis of her alleged "electability" would seriously risk alienating their core supporters.
Brad Miller, a white Democratic Congressman from North Carolina, just admitted as much in an interview with the Washington Post, saying that he would be uncomfortable telling his African-American constituents that he was picking Hillary over the African American winner of the pledged-del count on the grounds that she might be more electable: "I'm not sure how I could tell them that."
It's yet another major hurdle Hillary faces as she seeks to woo the super-dels to her side as Obama marches towards the nomination.















Great.
So when is Obama going to step up and lead?
When is he going to actually do something other than talk?
Hope is not going to solve the problems so stop talking and step up.
Lets see your leadership in action.
Lets start with $122 oil.
May 7, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, now I'm bummed. You said that you were leaving the echo chamber, yet here you are.
You're a liar - even worse than Oilbama!
May 7, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
gotalife has NOT left the building.
Your exile lasted what, 10 hours?
May 7, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're supposed to say that like this:
"You are a LIAR!"
May 7, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rumors of your leaving were just that, I guess.
May 7, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're still here?
May 7, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
What happened? I thought you were gone? Couldn't resist us, could you? ;)
May 7, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You lying insufferable little troll twit, will you please just go away.
Oh, and nice thumpin last night.
May 7, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or as Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC keeps calling it, a "drubbing" - I really like that word! ;)
May 7, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife, yesterday, stated that Hillary would give Obama a thumpin last night. He was wrong.
That should not come as a surprise, gotalife is and insufferable little troll twit liar.
May 7, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Back for more? You must like cod's liver oil too.
May 7, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
We thought you were leaving. Weren't you leaving? I'm pretty sure you were leaving.
May 7, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, he kind of has to get elected first before he do more than empty gestures like Clinton's DOA gas tax bill.
May 7, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah ha! An opportune moment to share this link:
http://gastaxscam.com/
May 7, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
groan
May 7, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is where Shuler provided himself cover. He is a freshman Democrat congressman in a highly Republican, and highly white Appalachia, part of NC.
Any uncommited Superdelegate who talks to the press other than to endorse is asking for trouble. for the next week or so.
May 7, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy Obama sure is LUCKY to be black!
May 7, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Rep. Miller of N.C. would not have to convince them Clinton is color blind!
May 7, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Works for me.
That's straight up good party politics.
And that's how it should be- our elected officials are supposed to be answerable to the voters who put them there.
Smart man.
May 7, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonder why he wasn't asked about how the white voters in his District felt?
How would he be able to tell them that he's voting for Clinton even though they voted for Obama?
May 7, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
But - he wasn't saying "how could I explain voting for candidate A when community X voted for candidate B."
He said: how could I possibly explain basing my vote on the premise that Obama is "unelectable" - i.e. unelectable because he is black?
He is rejecting the idea of giving power to the idea that it is ok to reject a black candidate because of someone else's (hypothetical) racism. Good for him.
May 7, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's be clear about something: Hillary doesn't face "hurdles" because she's out of the race, whether she stays in it or not. It's over. Everyone knows it and she probably knows it as well.
Well, everyone other than goatlife, anyway.
May 7, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has already decided to drop out
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/hillary-will-drop-out-by_b_100625.html
Well, sort of.
May 7, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I just don't understand the "hurdle" thing, either. There are no more hurdles - the race is over. To paraphrase Tim Russert, the life support systems are being removed and people need to say their goodbyes to her campaign.
May 7, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, she does face one huge hurdle -- herself. She needs to get out of her own way so she can exit gracefully. Without falling over herself.
May 7, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL - David Schuster on MSNBC just reiterated that Clinton will need 75% of the remaining pledged delegates (and added that she has not come anywhere near that all primary season) and 70% of the remaining superdelegates - not going to happen.
May 7, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
In states like NC, SC, VA, MS, AL, AR, TN, there would be no elected democrats if not for the support of black voters since the majority of white southerners vote republican.
African Americans would accept Hillary getting the nomination if she ended up with the most delegates. But they would *never* accept her being handed the nomination by supers after losing the delegate race to Obama. These reps understand that and know that their political future is at stake if they attempt to do so.
May 7, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, but, but...
... Billy Glad told me that if she won TX/OH/PA then the supers would all flock to her. Surely you do not mean to suggest that, confident assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, Obama's delegate lead is insurmountable? ;-)
May 7, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I said super delegates would flock to her after Pennsylvania, I was clearly wrong.
May 8, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
But why the gratuitous attack, Greg?
May 8, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the April 27 edition of CNN's Sunday Morning, National Public Radio political editor Ken Rudin, during a discussion about the Democratic presidential primary race, stated: "[L]et's be honest here, [Sen.] Hillary Clinton is Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. She's going to keep coming back, and they're not going to stop her." In response, co-host T.J. Holmes said: "What, Ken?" Rudin replied: "Well, we'll figure that out, there's a lot of ways to imagine that." Rudin returned to the analogy later, stating of Clinton, "[T]here may be a lot of pressure on her from the party bigwigs, whoever they are, to say, look, it's time to go, but she'll say, look, I'm in it until the end. I expect her to be in until the end, as Glenn Close was."
May 7, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're really taken with that analogy, aren't you?
Ken Ruden? Mr. King of Conventional Wisdowm?
What does it mean when so many male commentators keep comparing Hillary Clinton to a fictional deranged woman?
(I'm not referring to you, Liam--I'm talking about Ken Ruden...and others).
May 7, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leave?
No way, I was joking.
Lighten up, now the fun starts.
Now he actually has to lead.
Not with words but actions.
Time to step up and be a leader.
May 7, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're serious then take the fucking chicken off of your head and get to work with the rest of us to get him elected in November.
May 7, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here, here.
May 7, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
hear, hear?
Sorry, a little confused on my British exhortations.
May 7, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hear, hear" is correct.
Thank you for your attention.
May 7, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Soprano said
May 7, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really want to be there when Goatlife starts cheering, "Go Obama!" I'll bet he starts gagging.
May 7, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Way to phrase it.
May 7, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You did mean Clinton leave, now!
Obama leads!
May 7, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hu, hmmm, how to respond to that....
Fuck off troll?
Bite me you GOP hack?
Suck the peanuts out of my poo you shriveled sctutum?
Oh, hell, I'll go with the old but reliable go away you insufferable twit.
May 7, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the guy wants to vote for Hillary, he should just do it and stand by his convictions. He should communicate his reasons explicitly and then hope for the best. I support his ability to vote his will.
May 7, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
He never said that he wanted to vote for Hillary. That is your false spin on the subject.
May 7, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not trying to spin anything. Though this was directed at his particular concerns, it is a general proposition. Any super who wants to support Hillary should do so.
May 7, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that Obama is way more electable than Hillary in a GE should make it a bit easier for the Congressman.
May 7, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric, it's an interesting story, but why the pretense in the final sentence that there's still a race going on?
May 7, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not just how can you tell your black constituents--how can you tell the majority of Democratic primary voters that you want to overturn their vote.
How many damned votes is one superdelegate vote worth again? How many thousands? How many thousandths of a superdelegate vote is my one measley vote worth??
May 7, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read his remarks and the context again. He isn't talking about voting with or against his constituents; he's talking about the "electability" argument that Hillary's camp has been pushing.
He is rejecting the idea that it is ok to reject a black candidate, not on his merits, but because he might not be "electable" because of his race. In other words, giving power to other people's presumed racism.
May 7, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
all clintons got now is bluffing.
May 7, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
And $109 million dollars.
Oh wait, $109 -5 -6.25, um, we have 97.75 million dollars. So bluffing, and that.
It's our way of feeling your pain, since we don't pump our own gas.
May 7, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
plus the $29 million that didn't show up on the tax returns.
May 7, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here come the ones who are not scared
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/obama-announces-3-superdelegates/
May 7, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Superdelegates voting for Clinton will not have problems as long as Obama wins. If Clinton wins, she stole the nomination from the voters and that will anger African-Americans.
Now is this reverse racism? Nope, doesn't work that way. Consider the following "veil of ignorance" test for justice:
1. The primary concern for a group of voters is persistent racism against them, formerly very overt, now somewhat covert.
2. One candidate has the greatest potential to start racial healing.
Would not the the voters in 1 overwhelmingly support the candidate in 2? Should they not? Were we all ignorant of our race, but understood racism, would we not say the fair thing to do in general is elect the candidate in 2? Yes we would.
This doesn't quite work with sexism. Try it out. But you can also see why some Clinton supporters support their candidate fervently, even irrationally (to some here).
May 7, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?
May 7, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some people seem to think that if we elect a black president that will bring healing. The reality is the party is currently on track more to sweep the past under the rug than heal. If healing were truly the object, Wright wouldn't have been sent to the back of the bus.
May 7, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to know how he's going to tell Dale Jr. he's supporting Hillary?
May 7, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The African American community always votes in overwhelming numbers against all Republican candidates, and for the Democratic candidates. Obama has run as a Democrat, and Hillary has run as a Republican. She did not even bother to campaign in African American communities, just like all Republicans have always shunned them.
When given a choice between a Democrat and a Republican the most loyal base of the Democratic Party, African Americans, once again voted for the Democrat, Senator Obama, and not for the Republican, Hillary Clinton.
May 7, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW the district Brad Miller represents went for Obama around 60-40.
May 7, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Shuler intended to endorse Obama, but Hillary intercepted it.
May 7, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very nice. Let's hope she does not take it back all the way.
By the way, those pantsuits do look a lot like those retro NFL pants.
May 7, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
ROFL!!
May 7, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is really simple, Brad.
Obama is more electable than Hillary. Hillary can't win the black vote, Obama CAN win the white vote.
There, problem solved.
May 7, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's essentially what he was saying, already. It looks to me like his remarks were in response to a hypothetical from the reporter, having to do with the "electability" argument, which is about all that Clinton has left in trying to persuade supers to support her.
Brad rejected that toxic line of reasoning (that Obama can't win because he is black).
Greg's headline here may be a little misleading (unintentionally, I would hope).
May 7, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't.
If you tell them you are supporting Hillary they will vote you out.
May 7, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you tell them that you are backing Hillary on the grounds that she is more electable because she isn't black they will vote you out.
May 7, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I've already commented several times several times in this thread, but the more I think about it, the more I think the headline is just plain wrong.
Note the critical, but overlooked phrase "on the grounds that she might be more electable". Brad is rejecting supporting Hillary on those grounds, which he indicates would be offensive to his black constituents. He is not rejecting supporting her for other reasons.
That said, I think he would be hard pressed to make any sort of case for supporting her at this point, especially given his constituents' overwhelming preference for Obama.
May 7, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
DREAM TICKET! DREAM TICKET! DREAM TICKET!
For a VP, there is nobody who can do as much for Barack Obama as Hillary can, she is the best attack dog in the business, he can stay above the fray and she can attack. Between the demographics that she attracts and the demographics he attracts they will be UNBEATABLE. Its such an obvious unifying solution.
Who better to have as your attack dogs than Hillary and BIll, there you get the REAL two for one.
Lets UNITE this part NOW with the DREAM TICKET.
And all you haters out there... if not Hillary for VP then WHO??? Wes Clark? Ha -he'll lose Richardson the 'baseball pro'?
Who??
May 7, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
screw Hillary as VP, i want her out of the party.
May 7, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is, you don't want a VP that will overshadow you.
Hillary and Bill will suck all the air out of the room, not to mention it will unify the Republicans, the very thing we're trying to avoid by nominating Obama.
I liked Richardson, but he was terrible in the debates. We need someone with real foreign policy experience, and someone who will strengthen the ticket, but not overshadow Obama.
May 7, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know Gore doesn't want to endorse anybody, but you'd've thought he'd've at least commented on the gas tax rebate boondoggle, wonder why he didn't (or maybe he did and I missed it) . . .
May 7, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sticking to my prediction that I made in March. Senator Obama will pick Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio to be his running mate.
He needs to put Ohio in play, and he also needs someone with executive and blue collar issues experience. Governor Strickland fits the bill, unless he has some skeletons in his closet that the vetting procedure uncovers.
May 7, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strickland supported Hillary, so that might help.
Plus, Ohio would be nice to have.
May 7, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
one caveat:
He's 67, and would be 75 in 2016 if he ran for President.
May 7, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again race and not reason rule the day.
His statement can only be interpreted "as a representative of race-based voters I must also vote based on race".
MLK is turning over in his grave.
Brad Miller should be recalled.
May 7, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reason is Obama can win over whites, but Hillary can't win blacks.
What more reason do you need?
May 7, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently some white are willing to vote baed on reasons other than race. Blacks apparently are not.
May 7, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except for the millions of blacks who've voted for JFK, and LBJ, and Humphrey, and McGovern, and Carter, and Mondale, and Dukakis, and Clinton twice, and Gore, and Kerry, and countless white governors and senators and representatives and mayors. Aside from those, you're dead on.
May 7, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's clear you have a lot of emotion tied up into racial issues. I am curious about people who are able to filter out all the facts, all the information out there about historical voting patterns as it relates to race and class. I bet you are afraid to even look at objective documented information. It is amazing how the mind can deceive itself.
May 8, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Content of their character and not the color of their skin"
What we have is a toxic attitude from both black voters and elected representatives now too. Decades of civil rights progress through away. This is affirmative action taken to the extreme. A sad day for America.
May 7, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, Fogu2, you are ignoring the fact that Hillary had 40% of the black vote at one point.
It's not racism. She lost their vote!
Obama is just more popular than Hillary. It has less to do with race and gender, than with personality.
May 7, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well that's your story and your sticking to it. I think you know very well that is hardly the truth. If what you say were the case there would be a much higher percentage of whites, hispanics and asians moving from Clinton to Obama. But there aren't. It is only blacks.
So be a denier if you want.
May 7, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny you mention that.
from http://www.dailykos.com/
Who else could've cost Obama yesterday's victory?
by kos
Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:16:00 PM PDT
Boy, I keep hearing from all over the place that if it wasn't for those meddlin' blacks, Clinton would've won big yesterday!
Yes, it's true. African Americans were a big component of his winning margin in NC and paper-thin loss in Indiana. But who else was a big component? Let's look at some other demographics Obama got, with the percent
% of vote % for Obama
IN: People with college degrees 35 56
NC: People with college degrees 44 57
IN: First time primary voters 19 69
NC: First time primary voters 22 60
IN: Independents 23 54
NC: Independents 19 45*
IN: Liberals 39 56
NC: Liberals 42 63
IN: Urban 33 60
NC: Urban 27 66
IN: White 17-29 year-olds 12 54
NC: White 17-29 year-olds 8 57
IN: All 17-29 year-olds 17 61
NC: All 17-29 year-olds 14 74
IN: 17-64 year-olds 86 52
NC: 17-64 year-olds 80 60
The 17-64 number is particularly stark, but there are a ton of demographics that have voted heavily for Obama. Anyone under 64, first-time voters, young voters, urban voters, educated voters, etc. What about rich elites? Actually, Clinton won those in Indiana (52% of those making over $100K, which in Indiana, is a lot).
I should go around talking about Clinton's "non-senior problem". It would make far more sense, given that they're about 80 percent+ of the electorate, than bizarrely fixating on race as though it's the only factor at play.
(*) North Carolina is only the fourth state in which Clinton has won the independent vote.
May 7, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
just to be clear: First number, % of vote
Second number, % for Obama.
May 7, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And once again the point is that non-blacks are willing vote based on factors other than race. Their votes are split by reasonable margins between the two candidates with Obama being the favorite. Blacks are not. With 90%+ voting for Obama they are not voting based on factors other than race. They are voting race.
May 7, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Black people vote for Democrats not triangulating race baiting half-baked Republicans who made a conscious decision to got for the racist white vote as reflected in people like you. It was a deliberate decision on the part of Mark Penn as reflected in Micro-Trends.
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. 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," she said.
No blacks will not vote for this.
May 8, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
So black voters have a "toxic attitude"? Wow. That's even worse than "bitter". But evidently you're an expert on bitter, toxic attitudes.
May 7, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
we really have to begin knocking this tone off. if some hardcore clinton supporters will not support obama no matter what the consequences, then so be it. but this tone, triumphant and arrogant, is not helping us at all.
we are all from the same party. we believe in the same things. the other side believes the exact opposite. john mccain is going to ruin this country if he gets the opportunity.
we're better than this. we're liberal. we're compassionate. i know as much as anybody how frustrating and upsetting this nomination process was. there have been numerous times that i have lost my patience with clinton supporters and have said some things - right here on these pages - that were insulting and immature.
but not anymore. open up those arms, people. if we're rejected by other so-called liberals, then so be it. but there are many characteristics that seperate us from them. one of those is our basic respect of humanity. republicans call names and point fingers and trade wild accusations.
we're better than that. let's show it.
May 7, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"knocking this tone off"? Oh, now you want the support of the evil Hillary supporters. Take your stupid lectures someplace else.
May 7, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
We'll take our stupid lectures all the way to the White House, thanks.
May 7, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
uh, Mr Miller, you do it the way you are telling women you are backing Obama? Why not tell them to wait 50 more years - just as they had to wait for the vote. And then, pat them on their pretty little heads and say it has nothing to do with sexism..
Oh, and send in your membership to Citizens United, Not Timid.
May 7, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow.
Look at the dailykos data above. It has nothing to do with racism or sexism.
It has to do with AGE.
May 7, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
the point this article doesnt emphasize is it would be hard to go to your black voters and explain how you voted for the white candidate..... when the black one is all but a shoe-in at this point. if obama were not, it would not be a contentious issue
this is one argument that is not well-served by bringing up race. a slap of the wrist to the author....... SMACK
May 7, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yes, Idiot Shuster that moron who goes on TV and makes a fool out of himself. Tweety Matthews and Obamaman would be so proud.
May 7, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, Brad. You just did. MY representative was the first superdelegate in the North Carolina Congressional delegation to declare support for Obama after Edwards dropped out. Since you're such a big-time liberal, what's your excuse?
May 8, 2008 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink