« Hillary: I Can Court Obama's Super-Delegates To Switch | Home | Hillary-Backer Vilsack: She Should Concede Defeat After Tuesday »
Obama Rolls Out Second Super-Del Of The Day
It's not even 9 A.M. in the morning after Hillary's big Puerto Rico win, and the Obama campaign has just rolled out its second super-del of the day: Democratic State Party Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo.
The key, again, is whether Obama will rack up enough super-dels in the next two days to be able to reach the magic number of 2,118 by Tuesday night. He's now 44 away.
Advertisement
Hopefully, they can orchestrate the rollouts over the next 36 hours or so so that Montana's voters put him at least 5 delegates over the top ( to offset HillBillys inane '4 delegates stolen' argument).
It would be great to see actual flesh-and-blood POPULAR voters put the final nail in said coffin.
June 2, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is DiNardo from Puerto Rico? It says she's the Democratic State Party Chairwoman, but not which state. Just curious.
June 2, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Connecticut
June 2, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Irene Stein -- NY -- finally came out for Senator Clinton this morning. She chairs the Democratic Tompkins County committee. The county overwhelmingly voted for Senator Obama in February.
June 2, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, she'll get some supers too.
June 2, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I don't doubt Tompkins went heavily for Obama. That county has Ithaca, which is like the Berkeley of central New York.
June 2, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can this be over yet? After the RBC meeting...and with this being Monday morning...I just don't have the energy for anymore Obama v. Clinton. It's not even interesting anymore.
Puerto Rico felt the same way. Only 16% of the registered voters turned out; everyone has a breaking point for issue fatigue.
June 2, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt, I'm so tired of Hillary's hubris.
When I saw the picture of her standing in front of Mt. Rushmore my first thought was, "Oh no, she's gonna climb up there and try to carve her own imaage using nothing but her ego and her forehead."
June 2, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone remember if Hillary specified which lady in the pants suit would have to say it's over? Could Nancy Pelosi buy a pants suit and say it's over?
June 2, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I take it you referring to Connecticut State Party Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo
June 2, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently, the Clinton campaign is toying with saying the magic number is NOW 75% of the all the Convention Delegates . . .
June 2, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please tell me you're joking.
June 2, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Super delegates should weigh in BEFORE Tuesday's primary in Montana and South Dakota.
The polls are showing Barack Obama currently leading in those two states; but even if he were to tie with Hillary, he would only get around 15 delegates total. This means he needs at least 33 super delegates to put him over the top.
In the interest of UNITY, at least 30-35 super delegates need to endorse Barack Obama by tomorrow night. This would allow the STATES to be ones pushing Obama over the required 2118 DNC rules count for the nomination.
Surely out of about 200 undeclared supers, 30-35 are willing to allow the States of South Dakota and Montana push Obama to the Democratic nomination?
These people would not only be helping Obama win, they would 'put excitement' in the states of South Dakota and Montana -- we normally do not win these States during a general election -- perhaps doing this would give them reason to vote Democrat in November.
So, come on supers -- let the States be the ones to be reported as having handed Barack Obama the nomination -- not the super delegates!!!
June 2, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
off course these two could switch over to Clinton, and all of Obama's other delegates too, and we'll all see the light and finally feel the overwhelming NEED for Hillary, and everyone will live happily ever after. YIPPEE!
June 2, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's certainly possible. Not remotely likely. But still possible.
June 2, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
And lesser primates could, hypothetically, ...well...you know
June 2, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have humans fly out of their asses???
June 2, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
RBC did a fabulous job. Despite Ickes misgivings-it looks they hav ended the FL/MI and also ended a major excuse for Hillary to protract thr race.
June 2, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am slightly uncomfortable with the giftin of "uncommitted" voters 100% for Obama. It was a flawed primary, but should a board of 30 award hundreds of thousands of votes?
I am happy with the ends, but I expect backlash for the means.
June 2, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell was "flawed" about this primary?
June 2, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is totally PR and spin issue. In my view, especially MI should never count for anything. It's flawed for several reasons and anything other than 50-50 compromise is inconcievable. When you talk about uncommitteds- your giving legitimacy to 55-45 results of a flawed primary.
June 2, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, if you insist this was flawed how that sounds, don't you? Like Obama won because the primary was messed up. That's how it sounds to me.
It's a legitimate primary. There were problems but they were settled according to the rules.
At least, that's how I see this.
June 2, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
If we're talking about Michigan, of course it was flawed. What reason is there to doubt that? If I show you a carton of Neopolitan ice cream and ask you which flavor you like best, you're not going to say "Butter Pecan". It certainly wouldn't be fair of me to walk into a room of 1,000 people and do the same thing and then come out and say "The people of convention room X prefer chocolate over all other kinds of ice cream." I wasn't presenting them a choice among all other kinds of ice cream.
Saturday ratified the results of a primary in which the electorate was told that their vote would count for nothing and in which four candidates' names were not on the ballot. It was a flawed primary and the resolution was imperfect. But that said, in spite of the complaining and poor behavior on the part of the Clintonites, it was the resolution requested by the Democratic Party of the State of Michigan. They were handed lemons, bought vodka and tonic, and made a passable cocktail out of it. Now let's all get sauced and enjoy ourselves.
(Yes, it's Monday morning and I'm already thinking about cocktails and ice cream.)
June 2, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
And regardless of everything I typed above, Saturday absolutely did not settle everything in accordance with the rules. Sticking with the rules would've meant 0 delegates for MI, which is yet another imperfect solution. Two imperfect solutions were available (four if you count a 50/50 split or 73 dels for Clinton, uncommitted remains uncommitted)...
The RBC set aside the rules and picked the solution that was best for getting the result we want in November. It's not the way you draw it up for a civics text book, but it was a teachable moment...
June 2, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, MI was flawed. How can it not be flawed. Most of the candidates weren't on the ballot, the number of voters was ridiculously low. Call a spaid a spaid - it is what it is. And there was never going to be a perfect fix outside of a new election.
But that doesn't invalidate Obama's campaign or the results. The Dem party determnes the process by which a nominee is selected, and they put the best fix available on MI. Perfect? No. Invalid? Also, no.
June 2, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think they did the best they could with the options available to them. They SHOULD have stuck with the original plan to strip all delegates. But that would have made the states unhappy, not to mention Clinton. And they couldn't seat the full delegation as is, considering that a) it was not within their power and b) would have meant that there was no punishment at all for jumping line. So they had to come up with something, anything, that a majority of the interested parties could at least agree to. Basically, they went with the option that pissed off all sides pretty much equally. Obama wanted 50/50 (and, in fact, had the votes to do that, though just barely).
June 2, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about this: no delegates were awarded from the flawed primary since Michigan's delegate selection plan was never approved. The delegate selection plan developed by Michigan was accepted Saturday, in which they awarded 69 delegates to Clinton and 59 to Obama--even though Obama had the votes for 64/64 split. Both gained delegates Saturday.
The plan was not tied to, nor did it sanction the January 15th primary. Feel better now?
June 2, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still would have preferred they give Clinton the 73 or whatever it was so we wouldn't have to listen to Ickes bitch about 4 hijacked delegates. (I'm sure he would have found something else to take issue with, but still . . . )
June 2, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1811139,00.html
Tom Vilsack, there's a call for you on line one, it's Senator Clinton.....
June 2, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
JUDAS!!!!!!!
June 2, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
And she's PISSED!!!
June 2, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Turn out the lights, the party's over...
June 2, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't pray for an elephant unless you have a big backyard. I suspect the elephant in this election will not be John McCain but Barak Obama.
June 2, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
This from CNN Radio this morning - Clinton's campaign claims that superdelegates are not "locked" into their votes until the August convention and therefore can change sides at anytime this summer.
As a result, her campaign will refuse to recognize Obama as the nominee until August...which also means she's sticking it out all summer.
Also, they won't recognize 2118 as the magic number, but 2210 only.
I almost drove into a light pole when I listened to this! How arrogant and fantasy-based can these people be?????
June 2, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
If she wants to Ron Paul-ify herself, she can, but absolutely no one will be listening after Obama gets 2118.
June 2, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I make a comparison to Ol' Yeller, will anyone call me sexist or over the top? 'Cause her campaign seriously needs to be taken out back and shot.
June 2, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still think the best comparison to this is the Terri Schiavo debacle.
Hillary's campaign is moribund but she's demented and keeps insisting the corpse is alive.
I know it's a rude comparison, but it fits, AFAIC.
June 2, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
To her credit, Schiavo was a lot less expensive to keep alive.
June 2, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey-o!
June 2, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you calling Hillary a bitch? That's low, and sexist, and demeaning!
June 2, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Makes you want to pull your own head off. Dammit.
June 2, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Man, they got the turbo-charged goalposts for this one. Can't let the first not quite white candidate meet the simple goals - o no.
Have to keep changing the landscape, keep him on his toes.
Jesus.
June 2, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
But he'll get that number too.
June 2, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this number three on the day or has he already been counted? Jerome Wiley of Virginia ...
http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-06-02-0174.html
June 2, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
^^^ Should be Jerome Wiley Segovia ^^^
June 2, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Already counted. I heard on MSNBC this morning that Obama picked up the last 5 pledged delegates last night, so his number is under 40 (I've seen 38.5 or 39).
June 2, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shit, 5 last night? Plus 2 so far today.
Maybe 20 before the polls close is possible.
June 2, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously, I'm still asleep.
Sorry.
June 2, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, it's Monday and there was that giant primary vote yesterday in Puerto Rico - I'm sure we'll all exhausted.
;)
June 2, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean the primary the results of which Hillary will add to her popular vote total, even though the folks who participated in said primary can't vote in November? You talkin' about that primary??
Yep. That was HUGE. Potential game-changer. Now, if she can just poach from Obama about 100 or so Supers she'll be in good shape!!!!
;)
June 2, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point exactly - we're all limping around here because of Clinton's Big Win in PR!
;)
June 2, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to know where that frickin' 2210 number comes from! Even Chuck Todd, the delegate numbers savant, can't figure this one out, especially based on the decision made on Saturday.
I honestly think Clinton's campaign is suffering not from delusion, but Karl Rove syndrome - meaning, they can ignore anything they want. For Rove, it's ignoring subpeonas...for Shrillary, it's ignoring fact, rules and reality.
June 2, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
2210 sounds like they're not counting MI based on the election "results" not the RDC decision.
June 2, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
2210 is what it would have been if FL and MI got all of their delegates fully counted.
June 2, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody tell Lanny Davis, so he can get started on a new list.
June 2, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
QUESTION:
How many Delegates do MT and SD have?
Slate's delegate calculator says 16 each but the NY Times says 24 and 23 respectively.
June 2, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
NY Times is including superdelegates in their total, it seems. They have 8 and 7 supers, respectively.
June 2, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah. Thanks.
June 2, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, while Obama is literally traveling the country for the general election, she'll be following him around courting superdelegates away from.
Pelosi, Reid and Dean better have a chat with her AND let SD's know how ridiculous her claims of what the rules are really are. SHE does not set the rules, the DNC does!
Like Todd, Blitzer and Russert said this weekend - the Democratic Party is no longer owned by the Clintons!
June 2, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
A chat? A CHAT? Just what good do you think a mere chat will do with this person?
June 2, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink