Undecided Superdelegates More Moved By "Electability" Than "Will Of The People"

Whether we like it or not, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are going to need superdelegates to put them over the top to win the nomination, so both campaigns have been waging their own superdelegate persuasion campaigns. Obama's case: superdelegates should go with the pledged delegate leader; Clinton's case: it's the electability, stupid.

While Obama supporters have been running an Obama inevitability campaign focusing on the message that it's the superdelegates' duty to simply ratify a slim pledged delegate plurality, a new AP poll of undecided superdelegates indicates that Howard Dean's repeated advice that superdelegates are called on to vote their conscience and Hillary Clinton's appeals to electability have won the superdelegate message war.

From The AP:

About 250 superdelegates have told the AP they are undecided or uncommitted. About 60 more will be selected at state party conventions and meetings this spring.

AP reporters across the nation contacted the undecideds and asked them how they plan to choose. Of those, 117 agreed to discuss the decision-making process.

- About a third said the most important factor will be the candidate who, they believe, has the best chance of beating Republican John McCain in the general election.

- One in 10 said the biggest factor will be the candidate with the most pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses.

- One in 10 said what matters most is who won their state or congressional district in the primary or caucus.

- The rest cited multiple factors or parochial issues.

I was intrigued by the video of Howard Dean I linked to above. He acts as though superdelegates' simply stating publicly whom they intend to support is an official act of voting and once the number crosses the magical threshold of delegates needed to secure the nomination it will be decided. Certainly, the media too is acting that way, updating delegate counts every time a superdelegate announces but part of me wonders if that will be enough of a bar for the candidate on the losing end to accept losing the nomination. As we've seen before, some superdelegates have ridden the fence, saying while they have personally supported a certain candidate for the nomination, they reserve the right to switch when it comes to casting a vote at the convention. The very fact that superdelegates were designed to vote their conscience means all bets may be off once the convention begins, so one wonders if the losing candidate (and the supporters thereof) will indeed step aside merely as a result of superdelegates' putting his or her opponent over the edge with their public statement of support. Howard Dean would of course like this to be over by July 1 and to bring that about is calling on superdelegates to reveal their preferences "yesterday." Ultimately, though, that could be wishful thinking.

Tags: 2008 Presidential election, Barack Obama, Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, superdelegates (all tags)

Comments

112 Comments

Re:

the problem is, if we the voters give Obama the lead in popular vote AND delegates and they say nope

we believe Hillary is more electable and choose her.

well I for one would not vote in Nov. I could never vote for McCain, but the supes would have lost me from the democratic party, at least at the national lvl.

I will vote down ticket for Minnesota only

by TruthMatters 2008-04-21 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re:

There would be an anti-American argument made against the dem nominee if we freakin' nominated Ben Franklin and his time-travelling, jet-sized bald eagle.

If you think that because Obama didn't touch the decade o' dumb scandals of the Clintons, however spurrious, means the GOP won't? Just because you ignore her associations with Hsu, Huang, etc?

I found this delightful diatribe this weekend. It's a list of GOP Smears against the Clintons. 99.9% lame and lie-ful, but much of it as lame and lie-ful as the arguments against Obama.

You really think some or all of this won't come  bubbling up with Hill in the General?

http://www.prorev.com/legacy.htm

Again: No endorsement of a single damn thing in that list. It's just what I think the GOP are prepping. All concern trolling about Obama's Rezko negatives should take this into account.

by Lettuce 2008-04-21 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re:

"There would be an anti-American argument made against the dem nominee if we freakin' nominated Ben Franklin and his time-travelling, jet-sized bald eagle."

This is true.  They would make that argument -- but I refuse to believe Americans actully make votes based on how big your flag is -- or how many foreigners you vanquish in battle.

They vote on ideas.  And like it or not, Republicans have dominated ideas since 1980.  If the Democratic Party wants to dominate the future debate, we need to become an ideological party -- not an anti-republican party.

Step 1:  Drop the right-wing propaganda that Americans are stupid enough to vote on "Americanism"

Step 2: Push progressivism.  Drop those that don't.

Then we will be in a position to give Americans a real choice.

Americans have been voting for Republicans because they had an ideological platform.  The declined to vote for Democrats, because we've been a vacuum of truisms.

Poll after poll shows they are hungry for Change.  Real progressive change.  That's the road to long term victory, and that's what this election is really about.

by MuddyWaters 2008-04-21 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re:

So say we all, bruthaman.

by Lettuce 2008-04-21 10:09AM | 0 recs
Supers

We need to scrap this 'Super' business after this election.

It's sickening to watch Republicans bad mouth our party as Undemocratic -- especially when you consider the irony that 10% of Republicans decided on their nominee months before most Republicans got a chance to choose.

We could be making political hay out of that, if our process wasn't tainted with 'super' noise.

by MuddyWaters 2008-04-21 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re:

Issues will win this election.  Those that think Americans are only interested in guilt-by-association-corporate-media nonsense are the real Elitists.  

Every time you people open your mouths, you scream :  "Americans are too stupid to vote for the person that will run the country best over the image in the suit."

Keep it up.  It's a tactic for losers.

by MuddyWaters 2008-04-21 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re:

Posts like this drive me batty....

Are you saying that the Repubs will do nothing about Whitewater, Presidential Pardons, Lincoln bedrooms, health care failures, her telling off St. Troopers, her flip flopping, her support of the war, her fund raising scandals, her husbands dubious foreign contacts, and on and on and on?

Of course they will and it will stick.  It will stick because the public already has a highly negative opinion of HRC.  Her GE negatives are sky high and every political operative will tell you that such ingrained negatives are virtually impossible to bring down.

The GOP knows that only a Clinton Victory can drive their base out against McSame.  Without a Clinton to run against, and McSame trying to be more moderate, their base will stay home and it will be more Dems in the white house and Dems in the Senate and Dems in House.
With a sure fire Clinton loss and coupled with surefire GOP gains = more conservative anti choice Justices.

Yikes!

So Lets all come together and say "Go Big O!"
(Also, do you remember Hilary "whining" about debates?)

by gil44 2008-04-21 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re:

but people already know this stuff.  It isn't news and most Americans kinda rejected all of that crud anyway.

after finding out how much Starr spent & wasted our taxdollars on the bogus witchhunt of the Clinton's, I don't think Americans (with exceptions of course) really give a damn.

but I could be wrong.  

by colebiancardi 2008-04-21 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re:

You don't think there's any new stuff from the last 8 years that the Republicans won't distort or simply invent?

by LordMike 2008-04-21 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re:

"and most Americans kinda rejected all of that crud anyway"

Her high negatives show that the public has not rejected that crud.  It has sunk in and become her public persona.
Polls I have seen show that they public says she is untrustable and unlikeable.

Now put grandpa McCain in front of her and we got a very hard sell on our hands. - Especially since the press loves him so much.  They will dub it as Slick Hilliary vs the Straight Shooter.

Yikes!

by gil44 2008-04-21 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re:

her so-called high negatives has been the direct result of Obama's smear campaign that began last year, when he needed to up the ante.

If she gets the nomination and Obama supports her, her negs will go down.  Her high negs are most likely coming from Obama supporters :)

by colebiancardi 2008-04-21 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re:

"her so-called high negatives has been the direct result of Obama's smear campaign that began last year"

That is not accurate.  She has high national negatives since the start of the election.

If you remember, the talk pre-Iowa was "how does HRC deal with those high negatives as she goes into the general election?"

by gil44 2008-04-21 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re:

yes, and if you remember, Obama was campaigning and using all the republican talking points towards Hillary prior to Iowa.

way before.

by colebiancardi 2008-04-21 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re:

That's a bare assertion if ever I saw one.  

by MuddyWaters 2008-04-21 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re:

Actually I don't remember that...

My recollection of IA caucus was its was pretty clean

by gil44 2008-04-21 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-desk/20 07/10/15/most-popular-game-piling-on-hil lary.html

On Saturday in Iowa, Obama took another shot at Clinton, saying, "I'm not going to win just by being the most calculating politician in this race."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/67934/output/ print

How would you describe her response on the question of her First Lady papers?
Her response was certainly inadequate. When she suggested somehow she didn't have control over whether or not these papers were being released--what we're talking about here is her husband's presidential library. And when she is making a suggestion that part of the experience that she brings to this office is her experience as First Lady, people have a right to ask some tough questions. She can release these papers.

So is she being honest?
I think she was being disingenuous.


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/with -all-eyes-on-iowa-clinton-turns-up-the-h eat-2007-12-03.html
he campaign of `inevitability' becomes more desperate and negative by the day," Plouffe wrote.

ussert: But when asked by The New York Times whether Senator Clinton has been truthful, you said no.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21528787/pag e/13/
Obama: What I said is that she has not been truthful and clear about this point that I just made, which is we can talk about fiscal responsibility and all of us agree with that. All of us oppose privatization.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/71445 5,CST-NWS-sweet27.article

If they've been secretive in the past, they'll be secretive as president. If they haven't been all that strong on lobbyists in the past, doesn't matter what they say in the campaign, they won't be that strong about it when they are president.
when discussing Hillary's UHC plan

just a sample of his comments about Hillary that were republican talking points not too long ago and these were all before Iowa

by colebiancardi 2008-04-21 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re:

These are all responses to Clinton attacks -- usually ones that sound like they've come from Republicans.

Besides that, not a single one of these responses is a Republican talking point.

Republican talking points are things like:

Accusing the opposition of being immoral, elitists,  or unpatriotic.

Obama doesn't do that.  Hillary does.

Calling Clinton a liar is not a Republican talking point -- but he hasn't done that either.  He has said that her characterizations of him as immoral, elitists,  or unpatriotic are not true.

by MuddyWaters 2008-04-21 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re:

no, not all of them.  read the full articles

by colebiancardi 2008-04-21 08:35AM | 0 recs
Truth is truth

When he calls her on lying, being untruthful, or being disingenuous, that's not "attacking her."  If he thinks she is lying, he is not obligated to pretend otherwise or mumble and say "I don't know."  If he believes she is lying, he should say it.  He never went over the top with those statements, he just said he believed she was being untruthful.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-21 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Truth is truth

in his view, which in turn distorts the reality.

so, sugar coat it all you want - if it is fair of him to "project his version of the truth" on Hillary, then it is just as fair for Hillary to "project her version of the truth" on him.

by colebiancardi 2008-04-21 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Truth is truth

If by "project his version of the truth," you mean call her on dishonesty, then yes.  And I think it is just as fair for her to call him on it when he is dishonest.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-21 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Truth is truth

the clinton presidency was heralded as being one of the most open presidencies - so I think his "secretive" attack was out of bounds.

and "she will do anything to win" comment - well, duh.  So will any candidate.  He twisted it so that winning is a dirty word.  Anything?  Really?

by colebiancardi 2008-04-21 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Truth is truth

I agree that he has gotten off message a lot lately.  I also think that many people expect negativity from her (fairly or not) and so they are not as surprised when she goes negative.  When he goes negative, it is more of a shock to the system to many people (although maybe it shouldn't be, since he is a politician after all).

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-21 02:54PM | 0 recs
Some maybe

But more than 50% DO give a damn, because they have consistently said they highly dislike Hillary.  Those numbers have been above 50% for over a year.  Fair or not, she's not winning ANY of those people.  As this site and others have shown, when someone (including myself) gets totally committed to a candidate (or against one), there is almost nothing that will change their minds.  You can write off that 50% right now if Hillary wins the nomination.  If you are comfortable hoping that Hillary's 45%+ is enough to win the general, that's fine.  I just don't think it will be.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-21 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Republicans and the kitchen sink

First - Hillary herself DID NOT COMPLAIN about the debates - she made a direct and nonrefutable OBSERVATION

Second - If the Republicans want to waste their money trying to dredge up old news stories, that is their prerogative. Whitewater, Lewinsky, sentence commutations, ... our country spent millions of dollars on the Office of Independent Counsel AND CAME UP EMPTY!!

Finally - she's right. If he doesn't like the questions thrown at him the other night, then he'd better just get out now before the heat gets really turned up!!!. Right or wrong, the questions are there. The Clintons have already figured out how to move on. Are we sure we want to get that distracted with an untested candidate?

by pan230oh 2008-04-21 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Republicans and the kitchen sink

Wanna pillow?

Yes they did come up empty.  But there was enough about all of those scandles to make her unlikeable and untrustable.
She has had those high negatives throughout the campaign.

"Right or wrong, the questions are there"

You are right, they are there.  That is why he did the right thing.  
Obama made the post debate story about the Debate itself and George Stephawhatlis's ties to the Clintons.

Not about him or his answers.
He played it perfectly.

by gil44 2008-04-21 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Republicans and the kitchen sink

First - Oh, well if it's non-refutable.  I'll gladly conceal.  Right.

Second - in case you haven't turned on Fox News lately, the Flag Party will paint any Democrat as a traitor by association.

This tactic only works if you act like a reactionary, and are stupid enough to think people actually vote for the leader of the free world by holding them accountable for what their friends and neighbors think and do.  Imagine a world where we're all judged that way?  That's the road we're heading down if you take this crap seriously.

Lastly - Accepting the Republican premise that the electorate cares about B.S. ensures you will always be a Republican reactionary. . a willing tool of ignorant games.  Not a Democrat.

by MuddyWaters 2008-04-21 08:07AM | 0 recs
Fortunately, it will not come to that
Hillary will net about 5 delegates from Pennsylvania, which will not even dent Obama's lead.  May 6th, the hammer comes down, no more money, no more delegates.
Hillary quits May 7th.
by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-21 07:28AM | 0 recs
Remember, Obama only needs 25%

If 10% are going to go for the leader in pledged delegates and they split the leader in their district vote, that means Obama only needs another 10% with 85% still undecided.  That group would have to break 92%-8% for Clinton for her to have a shot.

by thezzyzx 2008-04-21 06:41AM | 0 recs
The Supers should ask themselves...

...which candidate has created a groundswell of support from new, young voters?

...which candidate has broken all fundraising records and hasn't really begun to fundraise yet.

...which candidate has been endorsed by Right wing hate monger Richard Mellon Scafe?

The decision should be quite easy.

by Silence Do Good 2008-04-21 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: The Supers should ask themselves...

which candidate will probably dump the democratic base, which are blue-collar workers and women?

ask yourself that

by colebiancardi 2008-04-21 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: The Supers should ask themselves...

Half that group hasn't been the base since 80.

And while I don't doubt Hillary believes none of her supporters would ever back Obama, they will. Most of them save a few Taylor Marshian bloggers, will.

by Lettuce 2008-04-21 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: The Supers should ask themselves...

you might want to read up on the stats on women in the democratic party.  

In the 2000 Presidential election, unmarried women voters represented the same percentage of the electorate as Jewish, African-American, and Hispanic/Latino voters combined.

granted, married women split, but unmarried women don't.  And there are a lot of unmarried women out there

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/9/1 2288/65522

by colebiancardi 2008-04-21 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: The Supers should ask themselves...


which candidate will probably dump the democratic base, which are blue-collar workers and women?

McCain.
But not Clinton nor Obama.

by jaiwithani 2008-04-21 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: The Supers should ask themselves...

How does it feel to speak for millions of Americans all by yourself?  Don't lump Blue Collar and Woman into some kind of monolithic block that you want to use against Barack.  People don't appreciate it when you think you know better than they do.

by MuddyWaters 2008-04-21 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: The Supers should ask themselves...

and yet it is ok to lump all young people into a voting block for Obama? Why single out MY post?

by colebiancardi 2008-04-21 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: The Supers should ask themselves...

I can criticize your logic without thinking "it's OK" to lump young people together.  I agree with neither, and it's unhelpfully.  

by MuddyWaters 2008-04-21 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: The Supers should ask themselves...

Oh, so you just wanted to troll a Hillary supporter instead of pointing out the Obama supporter.

got it.

by colebiancardi 2008-04-21 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: The Supers should ask themselves...

Show me an Obama supporter than says all Young People are voting for Obama, and that if we don't support Obama we're going to lose the Young People vote.

This of course ignores that some Young People are Blue Collar and Women -- or gasp.. . Both.

by MuddyWaters 2008-04-21 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: The Supers should ask themselves...

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/21/1129 48/782

and upthread here as well

by colebiancardi 2008-04-21 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: The Supers should ask themselves...

That link doesn't work.  But I know Obama supporters have made the claim about young people.  I think it has been phrased in a way that makes it seem that a convention fight that went for Clinton or the supers unilaterally overturning the pledged delegates would be crushing to young people who support Obama (which there are many more of than support Clinton).

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-21 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: The Supers should ask themselves...

unmarried women did not leave the democratic party.

I linked to a good article, perhaps you will read it for the more later trends instead of going back to the 1980's.

by colebiancardi 2008-04-21 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Blue-collar workers

so your argument can be used towards all those young voters & AA voters if Hillary gets the nod, correct?

because that would be a slap in Obama's face

by colebiancardi 2008-04-21 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: The Supers should ask themselves...

Exactly.  A perfect example of 'electablity' and 'voting your conscience' merged into one.

Obama is the candidate for both -- despite the false dichotomy some try to draw.

by MuddyWaters 2008-04-21 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Undecided Superdelegates

Wouldn't the candidate who can clearly raise the most money and can clearly bring record numbers to vote...be the most electable?

(Do ya think Dem Super's don't care about the above?)

by nogo war 2008-04-21 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re:

This is going to the Convention.  Neither candidate will have enough delegates to win the nomination before the Convention in August.  So it will have to be decided there.  That's just a fact.

by karajan72 2008-04-21 06:43AM | 0 recs
Why?

Why won't we know enough by the time voting ends in June?

by TL 2008-04-21 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Why?

I'm not sure whether this is meant as snark or a reason to wait.

Either way, it's not a reason to wait.  I can tell you right now: the right will continue to unearth associates of Obama or Clinton from now until November who they will use to question the candidate's patriotism.  (And of course, they won't stop in November.)

The Republicans have a very simple plan.  They will attack whoever is ahead in the Democratic race.  Now that Obama is ahead, they will attack him.  If HRC is able to pull ahead, they will attack her.  Please don't think she's immune - they're awfully comfortable at Davos, and they have ties to liberal academia too.  Or have you forgotten Lani Guinier?

No matter who it is, the attacks will amount to the same thing - the Democratic nominee hates America and liberals who live on the coasts or work at universities are vile and hateful.  

We'll have to push back no matter who the nominee is.

by TL 2008-04-21 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re:

I'm making a list of insanely confident statements which only have a very marginal chance of coming true. I'm looking forward to pasting them when the primary is completely over.

by jaiwithani 2008-04-21 07:19AM | 0 recs
Possibly

In some ways, I think you are right.  I am increasingly of the mind that Hillary is going to the convention no matter what, even if Obama gets to 2024 beforehand.  Just because supers come out and publicly back Obama (if that happens) doesn't mean it is officially over.  Those supers can vote however they want at the convention.  If Hillary chooses not to drop out after he's "unofficially" at 2024, she will have another 2 months of trying to make her case and/or hoping something else comes out about Obama.  I think that if/when he gets to 2024, he will start talking about McCain and basically ignore Hillary.  As an Obama supporter, I think he needs to start doing that after NC and IN no matter who wins those states.  He needs to just act like he is the presumptive nominee at that point and let Hillary tilt at windmills (unless he suffers huge losses in IN and PA).

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-21 03:01PM | 0 recs
Electability in the Year of McCain

My diabetic cat is more electable than Senator Shortfuse.

When people (read: superdelegates) realize how much of a gift the Republicans have given us in the form of McCain, the argument that the Clinton campaign has about being more "electable" than Obama may finally be put to rest.

Don't take my word for it.  Just look at the steady, inexorable movement of super delegates to Obama.  Or just take Sen. Clinton's own words about Obama's chances:  "yes, yes, yes..."

by bjones 2008-04-21 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Electability in the Year of McCain

Exactly.  McCain lost in 2000 beacuse of his temper.  I don't know if people forgot this or what.  McCain has a problem with meltdowns at the wrong time.  We need to finish our election so we can put some pressure on the guy -- he's not even spending money right now.

by MuddyWaters 2008-04-21 08:10AM | 0 recs
150 isn't that slim.

That's shown by the inability for Clinton to catch up.

I'm guessing the elected supers will go with their voters in most instances but not all. The unelected supers will do who the hell knows what.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-21 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re:

Can you explain to me why "electability" is somehow different from 1) the actual elections and 2) polling?

Clinton keeps claiming she's more electable. Well, the primary is an election, and she's not getting elected. And it's not like she's polling ahead of Obama nationally either against McCain.

So what the hell does "electability" mean again? It sure sounds to a lot of people like "because it's what Hillary wants."

"Ratify a slim lead in pledged delegates" -- that's your language.

Or you could just say it in plain english. Obama's winning in every category, delegates, votes, and states and polling

Methinks your definition of electability is wierdly divorced from, you know, actual elections.

by Flailey 2008-04-21 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re:

"ratify a slim pledged delegate plurality" is the term he used...

That's very misleading... let's call it Obama's "insurmountable pledged delegate majority"

By calling it a plurality you're claiming that Obama's lead over Clinton will be less than the number of delegates allotted to John Edwards... don't think so.

by umcpgreg 2008-04-21 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re:

no way he said that!! I am sure it was just a gaffe.  Otherwise, it is a republican talking point, as they rail against special ed in public schools

by colebiancardi 2008-04-21 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re:

This is what makes the Big O the superior candidate. (if he truely said it, I don't know)

Special Education IS a drain on local communities.  Anyone who has ever been involved in their kid's school will tell you this.
Its an example of how the federal gov needs to step up and fund its unfunded mandates.  Just like he told AA church goers they need to drop homophobic tendencies and be more open.

But what does HRC do?  She tells you what you want to hear.

by gil44 2008-04-21 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re:

oh man.  shakes head slowly.  Yes, I think that both candidates want to fund public education more.  

But special ed is not a drain - it is needed in local communities.  Talk to any parent who has a special needs child.  Just where the hell are they supposed to send their child?  

by colebiancardi 2008-04-21 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re:
Needed or not, its a drain on small communities.
I doubt he would say "cut it"
But its a fact that kids with special needs have an unfunded mandate.
This mandate makes the small communities scramble.
by gil44 2008-04-21 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re:

Everyone in education knows that Special Education is demanding.  They may not use the the phrase "a drain" but it sure is a challenge to meet the goal of maximizing education with limited resources and high demand.

To acknowledge this doesn't imply you're against Special Education.  

Sadly, Obama detractors probably believe this, rather than using this as some angle.

This is what being in a party of reactionaries against Republicanism does.

We have a long way to go before we can rightly call ourselves a "party". .right now we're a loosely joined confederation of 'not republicans'.

Anyone who thinks this Obama/Clinton split isn't ideological is fooling themselves.

This is an election about the future of the party -- not about defeating McCain.

by MuddyWaters 2008-04-21 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re:

I am not an Obama supporter and I gave him the benefit of the doubt with his gaffe.

I truly don't believe that he thinks it is a "drain".

by colebiancardi 2008-04-21 08:23AM | 0 recs
Drain

I don't believe he means it is "a drain," he means it is "a drain on small communities."  He means someone other than small communities, presumably the state or federal government needs to fund it.  I used to work in a learning center in MA with kids with learning disabilities (some diagnosed, some not) and got to learn a lot about how IEPs worked in public schools.  Some schools were forced to pay for students to go to schools (and learning centers like ours) that cost $20,000+ per year.  

Some of our students were paid for, by the school district, at $20,000+ per year for years and years.  These students definitely needed support and a learning environment that the public school could not provide.  

But most schools just can not afford to be sending multiple kids to extremely expensive outside schools like this.  The federal or state government needs to find a way to pay for this instead of building bridges to nowhere.

Here's a great article from Time Magazine a few years ago.  It details how a specific student was helped at the Higashi School (in Randolph, outside Boston) but the public school was sued to pay the $123,000 annual tuition.  There are no winners in this situation.  And to be fair, the public school went way overboard trying to pretend that the student either wouldn't be helped there or they tried to blame his behavior.  They should have been much more cooperative, but schools can't pay that much money for multiple students to go to outside schools.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl e/0,9171,1535854,00.html

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-21 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re:
As the Grandmother of autistic twins that statement really concerns me.
Do you have a context?
Surely he isn't suggesting a return to warehousing special Ed kids is he?
by J Rae 2008-04-21 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re:

No, he wants to reduce the local burden by increasing federal funding for such programs...

by LordMike 2008-04-21 07:55AM | 0 recs
A Major Criteria on Electability

When the SD's cite the electability argument doesn't it make sense that they will use the outcome of the Democratic Primary as one of the major criteria as to who is more electable?  They may be saying that their vote isn't based squarely on the pledged delegate and popular vote leader but I am certain this is a major factor when determining electability....

by hootie4170 2008-04-21 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Undecided Superdelegates More Moved By

Although it's true that they can change their minds right up until the convention, I think that that would be an incredibly dangerous mindset.  We all sort of joke that McCain is a weak candidate, but there's no way we're going to win if we don't have a nominee until August.  A decision must be made before then, preferably in mid-June at the very latest.

by rfahey22 2008-04-21 06:48AM | 0 recs
It's a very fluid primary season

Rules are rules.

by catfish1 2008-04-21 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: It's a very fluid primary season

Way to ignore the argument.  Would you be able to explain why the supers should put off deciding until August, and how likely it would be to pull off a win in November in that event?

by rfahey22 2008-04-21 07:02AM | 0 recs
Because he's outspending her and losing states

He outspent her more than 2-to-1 in TX, OH, PA.

Also, if you're going to stick to the RULZ with MI and FL, then you stick to them when the Superdelegates vote.

by catfish1 2008-04-21 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Because he's outspending her and losing states

So, you're telling me that even if the supers in June decide that Clinton should be the nominee, you would put it off until August?  You make no sense.

by rfahey22 2008-04-21 07:37AM | 0 recs
Clinton Campaign In Debt Is Not A Virtue

That's tough to spin

by bernardpliers 2008-04-21 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Undecided Superdelegates More Moved By

Yes, despite my beliefs about McCain and my diabetic cat above, the only way I can see us fucking this election up is by having a brokered convention.

Has anyone ever won an election coming out of a brokered convention?  I don't think so.

by bjones 2008-04-21 06:59AM | 0 recs
Dean has really screwed up this primary

the day he said Michigan and Florida could hold re-votes ONLY IF both candidates agreed on the conditions, I knew he was no leader.

The leader has to make a call. Both sides will have gripes.

Instead he punted. Now we're screwed for the G.E.

And he continues to panic daily trying to get the Superdelegates to vote. He looks like a fool.

by catfish1 2008-04-21 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Dean has really screwed up this primary

He never said that...  Please provide some proof...

He said he'd abide by the will of the DNC... and that includes revotes...

by LordMike 2008-04-21 07:34AM | 0 recs
Close, but no cigar

I won't rehearse the by now familiar arguments made about electability - people by now have largely made up their minds.

But I do want to respond to your comment that the supers won't simply "ratify a slim pledged delegate plurality".  That may be true, but it has nothing to do with this election.

Obama's plurality is not slim.  It's more than 160.  While that's not a landslide, it's a clear and substantial margin, both in general terms (he's winning 53%-47%) and more importantly, light of the number of supers still up for grabs.  For HRC to win a plurality of more than 160 among supers, she is going to have to win more than 2/3ds.

She doesn't have to overcome a "slim" majority among delegates.  She has to persuade an overwhelming majority fo supers that Obama cannot possibly win, and that she should be the nominee despite clearly losing the pledged delegate count.

That's a kind of inevitability argument, I guess.  But it's based on the fact that Obama's well out in front and Clinton needs a huge and dramatic turn of events to overtake him.

by TL 2008-04-21 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Undecided Superdelegates More Moved By

I think the diary is a bit misleading. Yes, electability was chosen more than the pledged delegate leader. Yet about 50% cited multiple factors.

So 60% of the remaining superdelegates may use the pledged-delegate lead as an issue when deciding their vote. That seems a lot more important than the fact that about 20 percent more will use only electability than only pledged delegate lead.

There's no indication Hillary won the message war here. In fact, for her to win in, she needs a lot more superdelegates to not care about the pledged delegate leader. One third is not enough to win the nomination, even if she is unanimously seen as the most electable. (she isn't).

by BlueGAinDC 2008-04-21 06:50AM | 0 recs
Slim???

"...ratify a slim pledged delegate plurality".

If it's so slim, why is it she won't be able to make up this ground with 10 contests remaining?

by hootie4170 2008-04-21 06:54AM | 0 recs
False Dichotomy

This is a retarded debate.  It's called a false dichotomy -- there is no choice between supporting a 'slim' vote count total and voting your conscience.

You can base your 'super' vote on both, or neither.

But don't let that crap stop you from muddying the party schism into ignorant debates, false dichotomies, and mindless reactionarsim.

BTW  Hello World.  This is my first post.

by MuddyWaters 2008-04-21 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: False Dichotomy

Welcome.  But try to avoid using the word "retarded" as an adjective.  I don't mean that in a snarky way, but after just posting about my experiences working with children with disabilities, I feel obliged to mention it.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-21 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Howard Dean -

Is underwhelming.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-21 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Howard Dean -

I am in agreement with that statement - and I voted for the man in the primaries.

Yes, he got us a democratic majority in the houses, but at what price?  A lot of those Blue Dog democrats don't have much in common with me.  

Now, I am  a liberal, but I also understand that the president has to represent all of America, which is why I don't have an issue with a moderate democratic as president.  But our congress should be more liberal, imho.  The Blue Dogs got in because they ran on an anti-war platform, but some of their beliefs are very republican.  I do hope we haven't sold our party down the river due to Howard Dean's strategy.  

by colebiancardi 2008-04-21 07:19AM | 0 recs
Florida and Michigan

A deal must be made soon on this, and both candidates are going to have to accept it.

If Obama "wins" by eliminating Florida and Michigan, then his "victory" will have relied on disenfranchisement of two of the biggest states we need to win.  That will be an illegitimate win and will have long term ramifications.  It will be difficult for me, as an HRC supporter, to validate an Obama "win" without florida and michigan.

So, both have to take their chances with the supers.

by 4justice 2008-04-21 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Florida and Michigan

4Justice,

Here's what I think WILL happen, and I would like your take on this.

They WILL seat MI and FL AS IS, but at that point, enough supers will have crossed for Obama, that he already has the magic number?

He needs just a small number to switch to him compared to how many have to switch to Senator Clinton, so she has a very large uphill climb?

Will that satisfy you?

If MI and FL are seated AS IS? not sure WHAT you can do with the "uncommitted vote" in MI, but they will call it something?

My take is, there is nothing that will satisfy the Clinton supporters, at the point, it will be the caucuses are unfair, she won all the big blue states, etc...

IF they over-rule the delegate count, THE SAME kind of angry will precipate from the Obama supporters: I.E. the power machine stole it from Obama?

This is going to end ugly, and I think, there is very little that is going to mollify the truly hard core supporters on each side?

by WashStateBlue 2008-04-21 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Florida and Michigan

Obama has gotten 35 out of the 36 uncommitted delegates at the MI county conventions this weekend.

by LordMike 2008-04-21 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Florida and Michigan

Thanks for that info Mike.

That makes it even cleaner, after enough Supers cross to push Obama over the number, they will seat FL and MI as is.

But, of course, that will not satisfy the Clinton supporters anyhow?

by WashStateBlue 2008-04-21 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Florida and Michigan

This will sound all tin-foil-hat-wearer, but as an Obama supporter I have a scary theory.  Supers cross for Obama in fairly large numbers and he gets to 2024.  MI and FL are told they will be seated as is (hopefully with some kind of penalty...1/2 votes or 2/3 votes or something).  Then Obama is up 2024 to 1950 or thereabouts.  Then the convention happens and voila!  a ton of supers change their minds and choose Hillary and she actually "wins."  Any fear of that?  I'm probably just being paranoid, and I don't know if the math even works for this crazy scenario.  I could definitely use some reassuring.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-21 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Florida and Michigan

Well, anything is possible, certainly....

Although it would be unlikely barring some incredibly MAJOR event happening to Obama in the meantime that would put him realistically out of commission....

In that case, we have a nice backup option...

Personally, I hope she gets offered the VP slot... I know there's a lot of reasons not to, but then she'll have to fight FOR Obama instead of against him!

by LordMike 2008-04-21 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Florida and Michigan

Again, not to sound conspiracy theorist or anything, but here is the major hurdle to Hillary as VP:  It would mean she is never going to be president.  Here's why:

If Obama loses the election with her as VP, she gets tarred with the same "loser" brush as him and has an incredibly difficult time in 2012, even if he doesn't run again.

If Obama wins the election with her as VP and is a great president, he's going to win again in 2012.  By 2016, she is 68 and many Americans will see her as "too old" by then.  Remember Limbaugh's stupid comment about not wanting to see our (female) president age in front of our eyes.  That will resonate with even more people when she is 4 years younger than McCain is now.

If Obama wins the election with her as VP and is a bad/mediocre president, she's not going to be elected in 2012 when she is the VP to a bad president.  Then it's 2016 and she's "too old" again.  

I don't think Hillary is willing to give up the chance to be president.  And if she is, she would rather be in the Senate actually doing something.  If she was named his VP for the general election, she would essentially have to root for him to lose to have any chance of ever being president.  I doubt she would willingly follow that scenario.  So I think we can comfortably say Hillary will not be the VP.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-22 03:59AM | 0 recs
by dearreader 2008-04-21 07:14AM | 0 recs
WHEN and HOW can they decide?

We are really in a hell-hole already?

SOME GROUP is going to be very pissed off.

Sure, the Senator Clinton backers would be just happy as clams if, after Obama finishes with a leads in Pledged Delegates, States and the Popular vote (which he WILL, even if you seat Florida and Michigan, but you must somehow count the states like WA who caucused, and have no really accurate popular vote taly)the Supers, based on the electability argument move towards Senator Clinton.

But tell me HOW that reads to every black voter in the country?

Tell me how that reads to the massive amount of young folks who support Obama, and, in their FIRST forey into politics, see "the machine" intervene to support "the inside candidate?"

SOMEONE is going to be pissed, and the beneficary of this is John "my wife is a c*** and I voted against the MLK holiday" McCain

BTW, this article bodes very well for Senator Clinton, but, but HOW are these 1/3 of the Supers going to decide the electability question?

If Senator Clinton wins BIG in Penn, plus 15 points or greater, and she DOESN'T get a large handful of the supers to cross, what does that mean?

Does it mean that 1/3 STILL doesn't know who they think has the best chance against McCain?

You would think, if Senator Clinton blows him out in PA, that confirms this idea that Obama CAN'T win  the big blue states, that he has lost the white vote, etc?

If she hasn't proved it then, what LATER state proves it?

Oregon? NC? KY? Maybe Indiana, but why wait?

by WashStateBlue 2008-04-21 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: WHEN and HOW can they decide?

I guess women voters are the sacrificial lamb (and they make up a huge block in the democratic party)

and HOW does that READ to every woman voter in the country who support Hillary & are excited by her campaign?

you are correct - some block(s) will be pissed off.  The problem now is to look at what block represents a majority and work from there.

by colebiancardi 2008-04-21 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: WHEN and HOW can they decide?

Oh bull...

About 60% (or more) of primary voters are female, and yet, Obama still is winning...  If 90% of women supported Hillary, then we wouldn't be having this conversation--she'd already be the nominee...

Many women, and many democrats have concerns about Hillary, and it has nothing to do with her gender...  Her stance on the war, her voting for the bankruptcy bill, voting on the bogus flag burning amendment, her recent attacks that mirror the right... none of that has anything to do with her being a woman, but has everything to do with her being a candidate that   many democrats have fundamental philosophical issues with.

by LordMike 2008-04-21 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: WHEN and HOW can they decide?

true, but Hillary is getting quite a percentage of the women block.  Not 90% like the AA block, but it is nothing to dismiss

by colebiancardi 2008-04-21 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: WHEN and HOW can they decide?

Hi Cole,

Believe me, I KNOW how angry some women are going to be.

My girlfriends office, a non-profit, is 90% women, and, while reflecting the WA like for Obama, there are two 50+ women the office that are barely speaking to the others, who are for Obama.

But, flip the coin? Three of the women are African American, and ALL THREE are vying to be national pledged delegates to go the convention for Obama?

You think THEY are going to be happy campers if the Supers switch to Hillary en mass?

It's really going to be a terrible problem to unwind this mess.

by WashStateBlue 2008-04-21 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: WHEN and HOW can they decide?

There's no "hell hole" this is all spin from the Hillary side.

In what alternate universe is this ever the case. She's presented this ludicrous argument that there's some other thing that's more important than the primary elections for deciding the primary.

We all run around like ants in a farm discussing it but can't someone just say clearly that we have a primary, she's lost it, the other guy won. Like every other time. It is not all that complicated.

And there is NO logic to the idea that losing the "big blue states" in a democratic primary has anything to do with the fall. It's preposterous. Hillary won MA. Is there ANY reason at all to think that there's ANY chance in hell that MA will go McCain?

Of course not. One has little to do with the other.

Yes Obama has issues with appalachian lower income white voters. What a freakin' shocker, who possibly could have seen that coming. Sure being black doesn't help, but dems have struggled with this group since at least 1980. Whatever, it's not a surprise. And it doesn't suggest that there's a problem in the fall that we didn't already have. PA is a blue state.

The only conceivable issue is a narrow margin in OH. I guess that's something but we don't decide primaries that way. Given that Hillary has problems in the Rocky Mountain west it's a draw at best anyways.

Yes Obama gets beaten by Hillary among Hispanics. So what, do you think after 8 years of Lou Dobbs and the Minutemen that this is really a problem for Democrats? Hispanics are dems now and for the forseeable future.

If Obama had lost fair and square, with Hillary clearly leading, do you think Blacks would go and vote for McCain? WTF? Then why do you think every group that favors Hillary will suddenly vote for McCain. It make no sense.

There's a lot of sound and fury, but for gods sakes this isn't hard. There was a primary, it was a close contest but one side won in a fairly convincing manner. Obama will have won in every category and will be the nominee. Just like always.

The only difference this year appears to be a breathtaking sense of entitlement among Hillary's team that seems to have bled into her supporters. She just can't believe that this other guy is winning. Well he is, and if she wasn't named Clinton the networks would have stopped showing up at her speeches a month ago.

Once she's dropped out, and she will have to, this will quickly recede into the background. Nobody cares about Romney or Huckabee anymore either. This is how things work. There will be a big dust up, she'll lose, and then we'll go on to a unified party.

by Flailey 2008-04-21 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Bottom Line - .........

The bottom line bere is....

Basically HALF of All Democrats are NOT sold on Obama. No matter what kind of 4 to 1 money spending advantage he has, No matter how many times Pelosi, Daschle, Kennedy, Jackson keep INSTRUCTING rank & file democrats to END the race by voting for Obama, No matter how many times the Mainstrea  Media keep repeating that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Clinton to catch Obama's Pledged Delegates, No Matter how much the ENTIRE Liberal Left Blogshere led  my Markos, Bowers are ordering people to END it.

That's really the bottom line here. Literally 50% of All Democrats including...

65% of All White democratic voters
70% of All Latino democtratic voters
78% of All Asian democratic voters

are NOT SOLD on Obama even at this LATE LATE juncture.

No Amount of Money, Media, Party elders have been able to CONVINCE Half of the party to END the Clinton challenge.

Bottom line...

Of ALL  4 Racial Groups in America, Obama is only winning Black voters. He is only winning his own race.

Of ALL the Big states in America, Obama has only managed to win his Home State of Illinois.

By all indications, Regardless of what polling organization you look at....

25% to as high as 38% of Clinton supporters are VERY FIRM that they will NOT vote for Obama in the fall.

The Bottom line question here of SD's is:

1) Do we pick a nominee who will ALMOST SURELY LOSE in November. Not just lose, but lose by an electoral landslide not seen since 1988.

( Where it will be the old, "white liberals joining hands with blacks AGAINST the REST OF AMERICA" )

or

2) Do we pick a nominee who will still be an underdog in November BUT has a VERY REALISTIC chance of Winning in the fall.

Do they want a Bill Clinton campaign of carrying southern states like WV,AR,FL combined with Red Midwest states like OH & MO, combined with keeping Big Blue states like PA, NJ.

Or do we want the Kerry & Gore style of losing every single southern state plus Big Ohio, Missouri & NM, and VERY VERY LIKELY LOSING PA & NJ- thus a Electoral landslide.

But be " Politically Correct" and appease Jesse Jackson by going for the " Historic 1st Black nominee".

That's really the bottom line here.

How ironic that the one who is "DICTATING" & "DEMANDING" that All Democrats unite behind Obama happens to Represent the MOST LIBERAL DISTRICT in the United States in Nancy Pelosi.

Boy, Pelosi sure understand's the rest of america.

by libdemusa 2008-04-21 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Bottom Line - .........

Oh, bull...

Hillary would lose WI, MN, OR, IA, and WA... her Red state "pickups" won't be enough to cancel that.  The only state that she does significantly better in is Ohio, I'll give you that...

Hillary would be the nominee that would most surely lose... her negatives are through the roof, she's broke, and the Republicans have been sitting on their hands hoping she gets the nomination...

Big states, racial groups... big deal.  She won all that with democratic establishment machine support.  Obama has won his states all by himself.  Bill Clinton didn't win the majority of white voters... no democrat has for a generation...  and Gore lost 2000 not because of big states, but because of teeny, tiny New Hampshire....  All states matter!

Obama has over 2,000,000 individuals who donated to his campaign... does Hillary have that kind of movement support?  Did people line up around the block and wait three hours to vote for Hillary in Kansas?  I think not...

25-38% of Hillary supporters aren't going to vote for ANY democratic nominee this fall, 'cos they are Reagan Democrats... Reagan Democrats love to flirt with the presidential candidate, then they always, reliably, vote Republican in the fall.  Why?  'Cos that's what they do!

Your concern is noted... but, the fact is, your candidate didn't play to win in the beginning and her catch up attempts are too little, too late...

The people have spoken!  This is a movement...  we'd love for you to get on board... We'd welcome you with open arms and would embrace your support...  I think that the Obama campaign could accommodate your concerns.  If not, well, then I guess you'll have to get out of the way... cos, it's tough to stop a moving train!

by LordMike 2008-04-21 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Bottom Line - .........

I most definitely stood in a line and waited for 3 hours outside Asbury Methodist Church freezing my ass (and feet and hands and nose) off in the beginning of a snow storm in Prairie Village, Kansas to vote for Hillary.

I will also most definitely vote for Obama in the GE if he gets the nomination, but I'd sure appreciate it if his supporters would stop trying to pretend that they are the only ones who have worked and donated and stood in lines in support of their candidate.

by Not the only Dem in KS 2008-04-21 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Bottom Line - .........

I appreciate it!  I also understand how devoted her supporters are to her, just as Obama's supporters are to him.  And I know the overwhelming majority of Clinton supporters do not support her because they are racist, just as the overwhelming majority of Obama supporters do not support him because they are sexist.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-21 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Bottom Line - .........

I ain't voting for a demographic.  I'm voting for Barack Obama.

by MuddyWaters 2008-04-21 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Bottom Line - .........

Clinton's voters are mostly Democrats, while Obama's voters contain a large percentage of independent and GOP voters, without whom he'd have been out of the race a long time ago. So when we're talking about DEMOCRATIC voters, it's not a toss-up who the majority prefers.

by SoCalHillMan 2008-04-21 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Bottom Line - .........

The problem with this argument is that 50%+ of people in the whole country dislike Hillary and don't trust her.  Her negative numbers have been like that for a year.  They aren't changing.  And when people get that deep-seeded dislike for someone, nothing is going to change it.  That means if Hillary were the nominee, she automatically loses 50% of the population.  Now, maybe those people stay home and Hillary gets enough of the rest to win.  Or maybe that 50% comes out in full force against her and she loses.  There's no way to know, but that idea scares the crap out of me.  That's why Obama is more electable.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-21 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Bottom Line - .........

By the way, I don't think the negatives of Hillary are totally fair.  There are things she has done that I don't like (some of them I dislike a lot), but I still respect her and I certainly don't displace anger with her supporters onto her.  I can't stand when people say things like "Obama's/Clinton's supporters were mean to me so I am never voting for him/her!"  That's ridiculous, on both sides.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-21 03:32PM | 0 recs
Another super for Obama.

Thus nullifying in one swing one fifth of Clinton's expected 5 delegate pickup in PA.

DNC member Enid Goubeaux:

"I am endorsing Sen. Obama because his message, `yes we can' has inspired so many voters, especially younger voters, to take part in shaping our country's future.

"I believe that Sen. Obama will end politics as usual which divides the nation and prevents us from confronting our most serious problems."

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-21 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Another super for Obama.

Yay. End of politics as usual.

Money talks and Money walks

Obama's tactics (although DNC members don't appear on the fed. disclosures list) are paying off. He will most likely be the Dem. nominee, but don't kid yourself that it's because of change and hope. He's a better politician -- shrewder than Hillary.

by BostonIndependent 2008-04-21 09:54AM | 0 recs
The 50 state tactics, yes.
And the not pulling stories out of your ass strategy.
And the one and a half million donors who are indeed hoping for change.
by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-22 04:12AM | 0 recs
Electability.

If that's what they are concerned with, they should look at the country's positive/negative view of Hillary vs that of Obama (and even that of McCain).  All other metrics aside, those numbers are very telling with regard to straight electability.

by GFORD 2008-04-21 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Undecided Superdelegates More Moved

I am disappointed in Howard Dean's statement.

by Caldonia 2008-04-21 08:08AM | 0 recs
"Big State" BS

The argument that Clinton won all the "big states" in the Dem primary and therefore Obama won't win them in the GE is bullshit.  Pure and simple.

It's perhaps the single most disingenuous argument I've heard from Clinton supporters.  I won't call people out, but there are plenty of posts upthread that perpetuate this line of bull.

There's no correlation whatsoever.  It's a crock.

And the dead-ender argument that 30 some-odd percent of Clinton supporters won't support Obama is another crock of shit.  It's WAY too early in the year to be clinging to polls that suggest that.  The wounds are  too fresh.  People need a time to re-evaluate their interests before committing to another candidate.

by bjones 2008-04-21 08:22AM | 0 recs
This can't be allowed to go to the convention

This can't be allowed to go to the convention. That would be party suicide. The two candidates can't be allowed to savage each other and waste money campaigning against each other all summer while John McCain is allowed to sit in the background unattacked building his campaign, fundraising, and rallying his base. There is only 10 weeks from the end of the convention until election day. You can't unify the party, get your fundraising in order, get a national campaign set up and planned, and win all in 10 weeks. It just can't happen. If you are so blinded by your desire for your candidate to win that you don't realize this you need to get out of the echo chamber and pay attention.

by Obama Independent 2008-04-21 08:23AM | 0 recs
Clinton: Electability is a canard

September 2007:

"This electability thing is a canard; it doesn't amount to a hill of beans," Mr. Clinton told a crowd of several thousand people. "What you need to figure out is, Who would be the best president?"

Bill was right then and he's right now.  Kerry used to be the "electable" candidate.  "Electable" in 2008 is any Democrat over John McCain.  Let's get the best President, and quit quibbling over who we think will be more "electable."

by Erik Love 2008-04-21 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: "Show me the money"
Does anyone truly believe Super Delegate ignore this?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2 0601070&sid=a33nP34Ao7U8&refer=p olitics
by nogo war 2008-04-21 08:59AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------