Dumb Idea: Reid, Pelosi And Dean To Demand SDs Decide

The stupidity of Dem "Party Elders" is a remarkable thing sometimes. But this bit takes the cake:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday that he may try to force undecided superdelegates to make their decisions in the Democratic presidential race if it stretches into June. Reid said he would consider writing a joint letter with Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) demanding that superdelegates make their endorsements public.

“The three of us, we may write a joint letter [to superdelegates],” said Reid. “We might do individual letters. We are in contact with each other.”

Here's a thought, let Obama defeat Clinton, if he can, instead of angering the Clinton Wing of the Democratic Party. Are they incapable of just being quiet?

By Big Tent Democrat

< The Other Media Darling | Denounce And Reject >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Oh no. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:13:19 PM EST
    I would welcome them trying to do this. Just to see how quickly it blows up in their face.  Why are they so frightened of this going on longer? Are they really in the tank for Obama that deeply? My goodness.  Their man can't win legitimately so they'll try to give him the nomination.  Then on to the landslide loss in November!

    Can't wait for Carville to be asked about this (none / 0) (#47)
    by blogtopus on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:36:45 PM EST

    May he say: Bless their hearts, let them try (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:53:05 PM EST
    I so appreciate my lesson this morning on this blog in Southern manners.  And now I, a Northerner married into a family with Southerners who call me "Yankee girl," know what to do when they say, "Bless her heart" about me.  

    (What to do?  Run!)


    LOL. (none / 0) (#108)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:00:49 PM EST
    My Southern friends can be quite adept at using "Bless your heart" when appropriate. With that: Bless your heart Party Elders!  You're going to need some blessings, luck, and lots and lots of skill to try and woo us back. Here's a hint with me: It won't work!

    Reid is going to prove (none / 0) (#166)
    by ghost2 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:44:28 PM EST
    the saying: "never underestimate the democrats' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."


    These guys are afraid of a civil primary going a bit longer (according to the rules that THEY THEMSELVES devised), and you wanted them to fight Bush and republicans?  Good luck with thses weasles, everybody.


    Actually (none / 0) (#100)
    by flashman on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:58:53 PM EST
    Carville said last night he would like to see this wrapped up in June.

    If they Break for Obama I be glad to have (none / 0) (#143)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:22:47 PM EST
    Clinton run as an Indpendent can she do that?

    No Way Would Hillary Run As An Indie (none / 0) (#149)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:28:01 PM EST
    She is a loyal Dem. I could see Obama doing the indie bit or the Americans for Obama Party but never Clinton.

    She could. She won't. (none / 0) (#151)
    by echinopsia on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:28:25 PM EST
    If there is one candidate in this race who is a real Democrat, it's Hillary. She won't do it.

    MoBlue and echinopsia (none / 0) (#198)
    by cal1942 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:32:31 PM EST
    are right. Not gonna happen.

    Hmm. (none / 0) (#189)
    by lansing quaker on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:19:18 PM EST
    "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday that he may try to force undecided superdelegates to make their decisions in the Democratic presidential race if it stretches into June."

    I think they should start right now -- with Donna Brazile leading the charge!

    Maybe then I won't have to listen to her "undecided" self during so much election coverage.  


    Can't they do it without making it a media issue (none / 0) (#227)
    by doyenne49 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:50:46 PM EST
    Why announce it? why have a press release saying this? Why not just do i? If you actually AR a party elder, do it. If you're just a posturing ass, stop pretending you ARE a party elder who has any pull at all.

    It almost seems as if they don't care (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by athyrio on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:13:48 PM EST
    about the Clinton wing of the party and are saying "it's my way or the highway"...Sadly for the democratic party, for many of us, we will choose the highway...:-(

    I am angry (5.00 / 6) (#113)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:02:43 PM EST
    at Obama for dividing the Party by his disingenuous use of race.

    I am angry at the leadership for trying to force Obama down our throats and discounting FL and MI for no reason. All they had to do was say that half their delegates would not be seated at the convention. Done!

    I would not be so asinine as to be angry if my candidate legitimately loses the nomination because of the will of the voters. However, I don't see that happening. I do see that the Party appears bound and determined to give him the nomination whether he earns it or not.

    That does not make me part of a "Clinton wing." That makes me a person who believes in democracy.

    Sorry if people can't tell the difference.


    can tell the difference but I'm both (none / 0) (#167)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:46:10 PM EST
    Rove, Rush are all helpig Hillary (none / 0) (#104)
    by lilybart on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:59:37 PM EST
    because they know how to take her down.

    Yeah, it worked real great on Bill (5.00 / 6) (#128)
    by Trickster on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:12:29 PM EST
    They knew how to take him down, too.

    silly (none / 0) (#218)
    by sas on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:01:23 PM EST
    they can't wait to have obama as the nominee

    they see him as easily beatable

    go read their sites like i do


    Why are we assuming they will break for Obama? (none / 0) (#157)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:33:48 PM EST
    I really dont.

    Trouble is (none / 0) (#195)
    by cal1942 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:25:37 PM EST
    the more time Obama is exposed the more he fades.

    yes (none / 0) (#217)
    by sas on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:00:00 PM EST
    you are right

    they disrespect us, we owe them nothing


    I know. It does seem like they don't care. (none / 0) (#232)
    by derridog on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:44:42 PM EST
    They must know how much they are pissing people of by saying they are going to throw the election by putting their thumbs on the scale for one candidate! I got another phone call from the DNC yesterday and i told the boy, "I will give the DNC money if and when they seat the Florida and Michigan delegates and not before."  He gave a huge sigh and sounding totally dispirited said, "okay okay," and hung up.

    They must be getting this a  lot. What can they be thinking? It just boggles the mind.


    You are assuming, of course, (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:13:52 PM EST
    that they would all (or mostly) come out for Obama.  I think it would be a hoot if enough came out for HRC that it tied his delegate count or made her pull ahead.  That would be hilarious to see the egg on Pelosi et al's faces!

    At least we would know. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:43:30 PM EST
    It's the prolonged uncertainty that gives the leadership heartburn.  The late convention date was another in a long string of bad decisions by the DNC this cycle.

    So be it, come out for Hillary (none / 0) (#99)
    by lilybart on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:58:51 PM EST
    just stop the civil war before it is too late.

    This is why (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by kimsaw on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:13:54 PM EST
    I'm not a registered anything, I a recovering party girl! I like to keep them guessing!

    I'm so impressed with Clinton for (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by katiebird on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:14:17 PM EST
    not losing her head.  It's becoming obvious that's not a skill we can take for granted.

    Are they incapable of just being quiet?


    A handy ability for a president, too (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:54:55 PM EST
    and for any leader.  Telling that Reid, Pelosi, Dean, Brazile, and their ilk lack that ability.

    its possible (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:15:08 PM EST
    they should be careful what they wish for.

    Here's another idea... (5.00 / 16) (#7)
    by Marco21 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:15:17 PM EST
    Why don't they make demands of the Bush administration or the rest of congress like they're supposed to?

    Instead they insult and demean millions of democrats.

    Oh, but they do! (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by talktomei on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:35:32 PM EST
    They use fierce, hot letters on the Republicans too



    Could they possibly be handling this (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:15:34 PM EST
    any worse?

    Oooh, Harry Reid and Howard Dean are gonna write a letter? I'm sure it'll be strongly worded and strike fear into the heart of every SD.  

    This strikes me as more passing of the buck.  I'm pretty sure I know what side Pelosi, Dean, et al. are gunning for, but I'd respect them more if they just came out and said it.

    I want to know this: what will happen first, the public endorsements or the resolution of MI and FL?

    The public endorsements (none / 0) (#66)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:46:15 PM EST
    unless Obama manages to build a large enough lead that they would have no impact.  But that can only happen with SD endorsements anyway.  I expect we'll see them trickling in over the next few weeks, especially if Obama wins Indiana or wins big in NC and keeps Indiana close.

    Don't you think? (5.00 / 9) (#9)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:16:00 PM EST
    With all the clamoring for her to get out, if they were all in the tank for Obama, they would come out tomorrow and have this thing be done?

    Yes I do. (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:17:22 PM EST
    Seems they are not all riding the Unity Pony.

    Yes. (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by katiebird on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:18:40 PM EST
    Good point I agree (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:08:20 PM EST
    I keep going back to this: we all assume the undeclared SDs are all sitting waiting for Obama. But the doesn't make sense. If they are leaning they would have this over and come out. I am thinking he has the low hanging fruit as far as SDs. The rest must not be leaning his way.

    Maybe its wishful thinking but something is holding them back.


    PLEOS don't want to anger a lot of people (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:18:14 PM EST
    At this point it is clear, If the  PLEOS vote Clinton the Obama supporters will be angry; if the PLEOS vote Obama, the Clinton supporters will be angry. If there is one thing I am sure of, the majority of PLEOS are spineless.

    Not deciding is the easiest way to go. What they are doing is praying for one candidate to implode.


    i'll bet what's holding them back is (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by scorbs on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:12:32 PM EST
    that they're savvy enough to know that a premature siding with Obama before primaries are complete would anger Clinton supporters, who do dominate the popular vote, so they're just before they take the leap to kool-aid boy.

    Am totally disgusted with the Dem party.

    I read today -- and don't know if it's true -- that the state senate meets about 55 days a year.  That means Obama's total legislative career lasted about 440 days or a little more than a year.  Now maybe he was doing district things -- but I doubt it; you just need to look at the districts he represented and some of the buildings there to see he didn't do much for them.  He certainly took Rezko's money, and helped steer public business Rezko's way, despite the slum buildings owned by that hood in obama's district.

    Then he gets in the Senate for a year, where he has an unremarkable history, and immediately runs for President, tapping into the country's anger at the democratic impotency in the face of George Bush, and lookie here.

    What a mess.  A nominee chosen because he won mostly caucuases in red states that'll stay red in the Fall, and who has inflated his resume.


    This (none / 0) (#199)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:35:08 PM EST
    needs to be put out there by a surrogate if true.  I've heard people spouting that his legislative experience is greater than hers because of his 8 years in Illinois.  So, really, he has like 2 years' total experience.



    This is likely why he refuses... (none / 0) (#225)
    by Dawn Davenport on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:18:19 PM EST
    ...to release his schedule from when he was a state senator.

    I'll never understand why the media gave him a free pass on this while demanding then poring over Hillary's schedule from her first lady days.

    Of course, they ended up looking like idiots for doing so, after her schedule proved her prodigious work ethic and little else.


    wasn't Reid's son (none / 0) (#130)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:13:36 PM EST
    instrumental in helping Clinton win Nevada?  Is the elder Reid not for Clinton?

    Sssh! (if true, inconvenient fact) (none / 0) (#136)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:19:21 PM EST
    I'm sorry this is too funny (5.00 / 10) (#10)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:16:33 PM EST
    Leave Obama aloooooone..... I am laughing at the idiocy of these guys.  It is just so juvenile... the voters are going to vote for Clinton, we must stop this...  he is being pressured to debate and we know he won't be able to refuse, we must stop this.....

    They are just giving the Repubs more fodder, they just look like wimps.  The babying of their candidate is pathetic.

    Of course they are capable of being quiet (5.00 / 11) (#11)
    by cawaltz on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:16:44 PM EST
    It's amazing how quiet they have been on the fact that subpoenas have been ignored and they were quite quite about FISA or Habeaus. Unfortunately, the only time they seem to not be able to shut up is when you want them to shut up. I've about had it with our party leaders(and I use that term loosely because I am already registered independant now).  

    I was registered Independent (5.00 / 9) (#18)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:20:10 PM EST
    for a while, until I realized that meant I couldn't vote in the Democratic primary in my state.

    Now I realize that the Democratic Party doesn't care about me, my votes, or the millions of voters in MI and FL. All they want is for their fave to win the nomination, and they don't care who they destroy in the process.

    I suspect that if Obama wins the nomination and loses the election, the Independent Party may actually become a bigger force in America. Which would be a good thing, IMHO.


    I can promise you this (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by angie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:32:07 PM EST
    if MI & FL don't count in a real way (not just for "show"), I'm changing my registration to "I." And I'm doing it even if Hillary gets the nomination (of course, I'm still not going to vote GOP, but I'm not going to be aligned with a party that disenfranchises anybody -- if I've said it once, I've said it a million times -- it wasn't right when it happened in 2000 & it isn't right now). Let the DNC see me "leaving" the party and maybe they will start acting like they are should to woo me back.  

    They could have saved us all a lot of time (5.00 / 7) (#58)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:42:28 PM EST
    They should have just come out and said "We don't want Hillary. We want Obama. No Primary being held and we don't care a rat's posterior what the people in the party want. We rule. We have a coup going. I feel like we are in Russia. Yeah, go vote. But only for who I say will be the winner.

    It s already a bigger force (none / 0) (#30)
    by cawaltz on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:26:08 PM EST
    That's why corporate America was floating Bloomberg for a while. It's only a matter of time before enough of the electorate get thoroughly sick of both parties and their excuses. It appears thew Democrats would like to have a race with the GOP to see which of the two parties can lose their base at a faster rate.

    Only Problem With Unity 08 Is That It (none / 0) (#200)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:35:43 PM EST
    was only going to be a faux Republican lite entity that still leaves many of us with no choice.

    and let's not forget (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:24:36 PM EST
    how vocal Pelosi was about "impeachment being off the table."

    That's not leadership.  At all.  It shows a lack of principled fights to stop the war and the bloodletting in the Middle-East.


    but but but (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by cawaltz on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:30:05 PM EST
    we need a super duper majority It's amazing the GOP, who happnto be in the minorty, have been more effective at getting their crap to te floor(Who can forget the condemnation of Moveon or calling a branch of the Iranian Army a terrorist group). Hey, they write a mean sternly worded letter from what I understand. Political kabuki at its finest.

    How Did Obama Vote On That Move-On Fiasco? (none / 0) (#103)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:59:35 PM EST
    "Present" (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Regency on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:18:40 PM EST
    aka He wasn't in town that day.

    wasn't he in town (none / 0) (#146)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:24:54 PM EST
    but said it was "silly."  Like with Kyl-Lieberman, when he was in town but wouldn't take the vote?

    He Was In Town Just Refused To Vote (none / 0) (#156)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:31:47 PM EST
    to support MoveOn.

    Didn't vote. (none / 0) (#145)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:23:10 PM EST
    Pelosi (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by standingup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:53:20 PM EST
    was post-partisan before post-partisan was cool.

    Now THAT's funny. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:54:53 PM EST
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:17:13 PM EST
    the slow trickle of superdelegates to Obama is much better than a massive rush.  He'll probably need about 80-90 more to put him over 2025 when voting is done.

    They don't count in pledged total. (none / 0) (#147)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:25:26 PM EST
    Delegate declarations (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by jackyt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:19:58 PM EST
    If SD declarations of support were actual binding votes, there would be no point in having a convention. Since they are not, this is just more muddying of the waters.

    Personally, I'm giving the supers. . .. (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:20:02 PM EST
    until late August to make up their minds.

    Here's how they can show leadership: (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:20:05 PM EST
    declare that the magic number is 22**---the number including FL and MI.
    Another way is for Dean to resign, effective immediately.

    And take Donna with him (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:38:00 PM EST

    my question is (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:20:32 PM EST
    how exactly do they plan to force them to do anything?

    By growing a spine? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:22:20 PM EST
    Their spines only come (5.00 / 9) (#29)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:26:05 PM EST
    out when it's to attack Hillary. When it matters and they should have one against Republicans, they are  jellyfish.

    I wish (4.00 / 1) (#182)
    by ghost2 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:11:00 PM EST
    I could give this comment a rating of 50.  

    Meant to give you a 5, oh well (none / 0) (#202)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:37:25 PM EST
    ... brain props aplenty but here's some in a post anyway.

    You Can Change Ratings (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:25:47 PM EST
    For comments you have rated, just click on another number and then click  'rate all'

    is this a trick question? (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by cpinva on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:20:33 PM EST
    Are they incapable of just being quiet?

    um..................no! next question please.

    could they possibly screw things up any worse than they already have?

    why yes, yes they could.

    they seem bound and determined to snatch defeat in the GE from the nearly certain jaws of victory.

    The Democratic party (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:22:32 PM EST
    has truly a vacuum in leadership.  No one knows what to do and no one knows how to stop the intra-party fighting.  I say this is going on because you have factions who's egos are so large, that they cannot see the end-game:  winning the presidency and doing what's right for the country.  Either way, the Democratic party will be the biggest losers because there is NO one coming out, or rather, bowing out, for the good of the people.  The people will finally just get fed up and abandon the party all together. Party elders beware.

    At this point, being an HRC supporter and all, I find both candidates disingenuous when it comes to their love for the country.  They love themselves more.  

    Too bad there really isn't a viable third party that could make things more about the people and less about ego.  

    First time for everything.... (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:27:57 PM EST
    ...change and all that.

    The third-party route worked well (none / 0) (#109)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:00:55 PM EST
    and won the White House only five years later for one group that got fed up with the lack of leadership in their party and in this country.

    That's the third party that won the White House in 1860.  That's the same party that will win it again this time, at this rate.

    So third parties can succeed.  It just has been a while since a group got it together well enough to do it.  Or was motivated enough.  We'll see. . . .


    Sorry (none / 0) (#206)
    by cal1942 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:59:52 PM EST
    Cream City.  Have to disagree.  It's fashionable in some quarters to call the Republicans a 3rd party in the 1860 election but it's really a great deal more complicated than that.

    It wouldn't even be proper to call the Republicans a 3rd party in the 1856 election since the Whigs had already splintered in at least 3 directions.

    Even in 1912, with a wildly popular former President leading a third party, the result was still a loss.

    Third parties can only influence the major parties.

    My apologies, this is really off topic.


    Sorry, but you're restating what I said (none / 0) (#226)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:33:34 PM EST
    so that you can raise 1856 and even 1912.

    I did not state that it was a third party in 1860.  Nor did I even note 1856.   I read plenty of historians, fashionable or otherwise, about the party's origins.  And that, if you read my sentence structure more closely, is the point at which I referred to the Repubs as a third party.


    I'm Indy so I'll vote based on conscience (none / 0) (#203)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:45:49 PM EST
    Any candidate or party has to earn my trust, respect, support and vote.

    Sen Clinton has, to my surprise, done that and impressed me in ways I never would have imagined. (I was neither here nor there for her before: not with the knee-jerk haters, sympathetic for her plight as a target, but not a fan nonetheless.)

    From what I've seen of her under the guns of Obama and the Dems and media and the Repugs all blasting at her -- she's more than earned my trust, respect, support and vote.

    I'm with her all the way and if the Dems don't give her the win she's EARNED (not gamed or whined, like Obama's been doing, but won fair and square on merit and record) I'm writing her in the ballot and Dems can suck on it.

    Doesn't matter whether she, personally, or her campaign as loyal Dems approve: I'm an Indy voter.


    A Stolen Election (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:22:49 PM EST
    If SDs decide before FL and MI are resolved it's a stolen election and any victory bestowed upon Obama at that point is rendered illegitimate.

    And Obamaphiles Will Be Crowing! (none / 0) (#111)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:02:33 PM EST
    Whose keeping score? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by white n az on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:23:27 PM EST
    You already get different answers from each network and AP, etc.

    The notion that even if these SD's did announce, that the score can be objectively tallied is silly.

    If I understand the "RULZ" (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by angie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:25:17 PM EST
    and granted, they keep on changing them -- even if all the SDs were to come out tomorrow for Obama, Hillary would still have the right to take it to the convention because under the "RULZ" the SDs could change their minds at any point -- right? Didn't Lewis go from endorsing Hillary to endorsing Obama? Also, it still does not solve the problem of FL & MI -- because even if the SDs give Obama now the 2025 he needs (which I don't think is possible until at least after the remaining primaries are over, but I'm not sure of the exact # of SDs left) it still would not be the "magic number" needed if FL & MI count.  Does the DNC really think it can wiggle out of being responsible for disenfranchising FL & MI just by crowning Obama prematurely?  'Cause I for one will not just forget about what they are doing. Funny, how Richarson's defense to Carville is that Clinton is the one who is acting like this is a dynasty, when it the Obama and the DNC who are against letting the people vote.

    Yeah but any part of the Roolz that.... (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:27:20 PM EST
    ...provide a valid argument for Hillary are superceded by the ones that don't. Everybody knows that. </snark>

    Ah yes, I forgot that one! (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by angie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:33:54 PM EST
    Sure Was Easy To Pick Up MSM Talking Points.... (none / 0) (#118)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:06:34 PM EST
    Sick of that dynasty argument.

    I Meant Easy For Richardson To Pick Up MSM Talking (none / 0) (#121)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:08:09 PM EST
    Points....they just tripped right off his tongue.
    It's a lame argument.  If you want to get technical, "The Clinton Dynasty" provided some pretty good times, even for fat-ass Richardson.

    I feel like watching the news is a waste of my (none / 0) (#173)
    by FLVoter on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:54:28 PM EST
    time. I could just go to the Sen. Obama website and get it directly from him.  Cut out the middle man.  

    Harry Reid (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:28:57 PM EST
    "Sen. Reid was talking about the possibility of simply sending a letter to superdelegates after the primary process is over to encourage them to make their support known," said Rodell Mollineau, Reid's communications director.

    "His statement today was nothing more than a reiteration of his past comments that most superdelegates should be in a position after June 3rd to make a decision and make their support known. No one should read any further into it than that."

    Reid, who himself has not endorsed, said he would not rush any of the superdelegates for now.

    "People will have plenty of opportunity after the last primary on June 2 to make a decision about what they are going to do," he said.

    So what is the point of saying that now? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:47:06 PM EST
    I think they feel left out of the excitement.

    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:12:10 PM EST
    ...and doesn't want to have to share with Sen. Clinton.  Pelosi currently is the most powerful woman in the land and if Sen. Clinton wins, she will lose her place.

    I'm not crazy about the girl vs girl argument (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:22:19 PM EST
    I think Pelosi has been disappointing as a leader, but I also think that  many, many dems, both male and female, will feel the sting if Clinton gets the White House.  Their power bases will be shaken to the core.  I don't think Pelosi feels threatened because there's another strong woman in the arena, I think her actions are those of a strong politician who does not want to be usurped by another strong politician.  Gender doesn't play a part in it.

    (conversely, folks should wonder why they want Obama so badly.  Answer: because they can keep their power and control him)


    OK Kathy, I Can Buy That Argument (none / 0) (#150)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:28:22 PM EST
    No, I don't buy that (none / 0) (#155)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:31:43 PM EST
    Pelosi represents a heavy Obama supporting district, and it would be natural for her to support him, especially since she faces a primary challenge from Cindy sheehan.

    I'm not saying that excuses her actions.


    I think they want (none / 0) (#97)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:58:10 PM EST
    to provide some reassurance to the donor base that there will be an effort at avoiding a contested convention.

    Ah I think they just want to identify (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:49:07 PM EST
    the individual votes for Clinton so that they can be pressured before the convention. Ha!

    Aha! (none / 0) (#137)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:19:39 PM EST
    This, I have no problem with.

    As long as Florida and MI are counted in a meaningful way.


    So, they are supposedly concerned (none / 0) (#228)
    by 0 politico on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:52:45 PM EST
    about a split in the party.   This is because candidate supporters are getting more vocal and assertive of their preference, not because the candidates themselves are getting too nasty (unless you are for BO and can't take the competition).  This has actually been rather mild and the HC campaign has not gotten "nasty" yet, regardless of what Olberman and his ilk say.

    But, to have this "decided" before the convention, regardless of whether the leaderships is in the tank for BO, begs the question of, "Why have a convention?"  Other than to have a media covered "coronation", every other issue can be solved by committees...don't need it for the candidate to pick a VP.  Why bother.

    Frankly, I recall when conventions used to actually mean something.  Where candidates were actually nominated and conferred.  Where delegates were wooed.  

    I am not a real political junky - just work in the Beltway - but, I would feel kind of cheated and short changed.  I feel the primaries are stretched out too long, and started too early.  But, I want a reason to tune in to the convention.  Otherwise, I'll find something else to do this summer.

    And, if Harry Reid and company are looking at this as a way to force BO on us before the convention, it may be time fo rme to turn in my party card and go independent.


    The Keystone Kops (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:30:11 PM EST
    are running the Democratic Party!

    Put the nails in the coffin now (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:32:21 PM EST
    You know, this is how it felt when Obamania took over DK. Anyone for other than O were pushed off the site. Thrown off the island. Now it is barely disquised, we are being shoved out of the Democratic Party. What happened to helping them gain control in '06.

    I suspect they think that the arguing is allowing McCain to take control. Well, the arguing is keeping the Dems front page and they should look in the mirror. It is 'they' who are allowing McCain to take control. The fault of the loss will be at their feet.

    am I reading this wrong (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:32:32 PM EST
    or are they saying they would step in in JUNE doesn't that mean AFTER everyone has voted?

    so what exactly is everyone upset about? this was never going to the convention. and they are once again letting it be known, in June if there isn't a clear winner the supes have to endorse.

    so what now you all want the your fundamental right to a floor fight?

    yep sounds like june to me (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:33:59 PM EST
    Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid took his comments about the state of the Democratic primary one step further today, suggesting that he and other prominent Democrats would intervene in the race if primary season concludes without a clear winner:

    But what about the RULZ? (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by angie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:37:44 PM EST
    It is against the RULZ to force the SDs to not only choose, but "lock in their choice" before the convention.  I thought the Obama camp was a stickler for the RULZ.  Oh, yeah, as Maria Garcia pointed out up thread, the RULZ only matter when the help Obama.

    what lock in (none / 0) (#52)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:40:07 PM EST
    most supers know who they want, they are just hesitant to endorse in case something happens.

    after June, what are they waiting for? they have seen these candidates for 15 months if they don't know by now which they prefer?

    you are seriously going to throw a fit because the supers have to choose the candidate in June instead of choosing the candidate 2 months later in August?

    exactly what do you think changes between June and August after everyone has already voted?


    It is still not following the RULZ (none / 0) (#73)
    by angie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:48:09 PM EST
    and no one has done more for the RULZ then Barack Obama, or have you forgotten that?

    What's the deal with misspelling (none / 0) (#96)
    by magster on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:57:57 PM EST
    rules as RULZ or ROOLZ when referring to Obama's arguments about the process? What's the history behind that?  I don't get it.

    'cause that is how the "cool" kids do it (none / 0) (#163)
    by angie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:42:14 PM EST
    and we all know the "blogger boiz" behind Obama are superfly!

    Rules are rules (none / 0) (#212)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:51:15 PM EST
    Rules are actual rules.  Roolz are political spin.

    Like: DNC rules allow for a re-vote; roolz don't if Obama would lose in those re-votes.  Rules say the superdelegates are independent; roolz say they must go with the pledged delegates and endorse Obama.  Rules say that the primary process goes through June; roolz say the candidate that is picking on Obama must drop out.  Rules say nearly any one can run for President; roolz say only if that person is not a Clinton and they would beat Obama.


    That a decision by SDs is more important (none / 0) (#45)
    by katiebird on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:36:36 PM EST
    Than seating (in some meaningful way) MI & FL?  Maybe?

    More drinking of the Kool-Aid (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by janarchy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:35:14 PM EST
    Looks like Reid, Pelosi and Dean are all drinking from the same keg as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Let's just annoint Obama today and forget about that nasty little thing called democracy...

    Comedy Central (none / 0) (#76)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:49:59 PM EST
    should be proud that their "anchors" are considered Democratic Party leadership.  Or maybe the leadership should feel ashamed.

    As long as MI and FL (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by pie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:36:37 PM EST
    are out of the mix, the nomination will be controversial.

    Sorry, but that's the way it is.

    Let's face it, folks: (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Jim J on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:38:21 PM EST
    We're looking at the Revenge of the Wine Track. They've waited all these decades for a candidate who may finally be able to grasp the gold ring, for once in their lifetimes.

    For them, it's personal, and it's about not only their visceral hatred and jealousy of the successful Clintons, but about class: This is their chance to "prove" once and for all that they don't need the stinking unwashed blue collar masses. Just tap internet donors, jack up AA turnout, plug and play.

    Come on, you know it's true, they've all but told us: They actively do NOT want Hillary voters in November. You know that's the subtext here, it's only coming out in the open because Obama is limping.

    its good that they dont want them (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:40:22 PM EST
    cause me thinks they are not going to get a whole bunch of them.

    I was so excited when this all began. (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by mm on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:21:37 PM EST
    Little did I realize that in less than 3 months I'd find myself getting tossed over the side of the boat.  Little did I understand that I wouldn't belong to a party any more.

    I'm sure Dean and friends think they'll be able to heal the wounds after they've administered the coup de grace to Senator Clinton.  But it's too late for me.  That's a promise.


    The idea that Obama (none / 0) (#54)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:40:23 PM EST
    should be any more or less preferable to the wine track must be the result of some collective psychosis.

    Anyway, Harry Reid is not a wine track Democrat.


    I respectfully disagree (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jim J on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:43:23 PM EST
    based only on his waffling, weakness, and general lack of direction. I read all the fluff too, about him being a former boxer. I ain't buying the hype, thanks.

    and (none / 0) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:54:43 PM EST
    Harry is supposed to be for Hillary.

    I thought that was Kerry (none / 0) (#80)
    by ineedalife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:52:14 PM EST
    Or was that the Windsurfer track? Are there sub-tracks in the Deanocratic Wing of the Democratic Party?

    is it possible many Super Delegates (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by dem08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:59:52 PM EST
    would go to Hillary now?

    There must be many Democrats looking at Obama's inability to win with the voters we all know he is anemic with.

    This move could cause Obama's downward spiral to continue & Hillary is on a roll.

    10 million dollars a day is impressive by itself; but the Media thinks it means Obama cannot win, which also helps Hillary.

    Good. Let them decide ASAP either way (none / 0) (#112)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:02:42 PM EST
    Let's put an end to this. If they want Hillary, fine. But if they put Obama over the top, you must accept that outcome as well.

    not the best political move (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:00:18 PM EST
    from these folks. Of course we all know the SD's will be pushed to decide soon after the primaries are over. And that's even fine. But to make a big political show like this is quite absurd. It's as if they have no political sense which is stunning given the position they're in. If any party can alienate and disenfranchise their members and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, it's these guys.

    We used to say, I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat. Now that they seem to have organized, many around here are now saying I'm an independent. Perhaps they should have stayed disorganized.

    how truly upsetting is it (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by ccpup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:06:31 PM EST
    to no longer be shocked to see the words dumb, Pelosi, Reid and Dean in the same sentence.

    Once upon a time, I'd be incensed that someone would call them "dumb".  Now it's just a "yeah, what else is new?" type of deal.

    God forbid the strongest candidate win, right Pelosi, Reid and Dean?

    Pull your greedy mouths off the spigot and step away from that big, red, talking, giggling pitcher who has a penchant for bursting through walls unannounced and no one gets hurt.

    Strongest or most votes? (none / 0) (#129)
    by Rashomon66 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:13:19 PM EST
    God forbid the strongest candidate win, right Pelosi, Reid and Dean?

    God forbid we go back to the 19th century when backroom deals decided who was the best candidate and the voters had no say.
    I'll agree the primary system is not perfect. But if the voters choose Obama in this process then so be it.


    Backroom deals were done before the (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:55:48 PM EST
    primaries even started. None of them care about our votes and our votes won't be what decides the outcome. It's all about power-who has it and who loses it.

    and the way it looks now (5.00 / 0) (#196)
    by ccpup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:26:41 PM EST
    the voters AREN'T choosing Obama and so Reid, Pelosi and Dean are trying to save his political behind as it begins to look more and more (with all these comparisons to McGovern and questions about his GE electability against McCain) like he'll lose the nomination the old fashioned way:  by repeatedly shooting himself in the foot by saying truly stupid things.

    Unless, of course, they WANT to run the weaker candidate in order to (they hope) help their down ticket Dems, strengthen the House and Senate, but lose the Presidency in the process.

    Crazier things have happened.


    Dumb? As dumb as ... um ... a whole BAG of foxes! (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:16:45 PM EST
    Oh for the love of [grade A No. 1 veggie garden grade] Peat.

    Let's get it OUT THERE that Obama needs his own personal extra-special set of rules to succeed.

    Oh yeah, that won't look like a pile of Loony Tunes ammo that locks 'n'loads right into existing blunderbusses.

    You might as well pile it outside Dem HQ with a sign in Wile E. Coyote's handwriting saying, Free to the GOP. Yep, glad Dems kept their powder dry for fights on my constitutional protections to save it for times like this.

    The important thing is, never having to show REAL LEADERSHIP based on principle!

    Two thumbs up, Dems, which lamentably is one more than the working synapses that came up with this totally brill strategery.

    In passing, I've never been big on designing a message based on avoiding Repug attacks mainly because THERE WILL ALWAYS BE ONE. Obama's hubris is that he's just so pretty and so charismatic, they can't help but Unify with him. [eye roll into a gymnastic tumbling line annnnnd she sticks the landing]

    Therefore, don't write policies and messages based on avoiding Repug attacks. Fighting for what we truly believe in will always be both smart and intuitive, and sensible too. It will play well to the 2/3 of people who AGREE WITH US ALREADY. It will keep us on course even during stormy weather. It will feel righteous and good fighting for the 2/3 of people that stoopid Dems are shunning in order to chase after the elusive 1/3 who hate our frackin' guts, always have, always will.

    Jeez, I can't be the only feckin eedjit who sees this.

    you're amazing (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by ccpup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:28:37 PM EST
    I never would have stuck that landing.  Way too much twisting, turning, aerial flips and dips for me to hit the ground without stumbling at least twice, probably thrice.  (yes, I said thrice and I'm proud of it)

    I tip my hat to you, Nadia.


    They're panicking (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by Mari on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:15:52 PM EST
    I think it's significant that the local NC GOP ad is connecting Obama's Wright baggage with the Dem candidates in the state. Downstream Democratic officials know their elections are at stake if they hitch their wagons to Obama. Probably, Reid/Pelosi etc are getting rebellion from state and congressional democratic officials and they are trying to stamp it out now, but it's too late. Obama is so damaged, he will be toxic for most Dems. The party elite may be able to ride out the Obama implosion, but the rest of them can't.

    agreed (none / 0) (#190)
    by miguelito on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:20:25 PM EST
    any gains made recently in red states could be lost due to Obama.  Their campaign and it's baggage is bringing the party down.  

    Yes (none / 0) (#201)
    by Mari on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:37:11 PM EST
    Obama couldn't close the deal in Penna. His luster is fading and all his unsavoury connections which are unfortunately, real and not made-up Republican talking points, are becoming more apparent. He lost 2 of 4 affluent suburbs of Philly. He's losing his white base.

    Aren't some supers (none / 0) (#26)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:23:31 PM EST

    forbidden by state law to declare before the convention?  I though I read that somewhere.

    A Montana superdelegate (none / 0) (#81)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:52:18 PM EST
    had to withdraw her declaration for Obama until June 3rd.

    Ack! (none / 0) (#37)
    by pie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:31:39 PM EST
    What a mess.  It didn't have to be like this.

    Supers (none / 0) (#43)
    by PaulDem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:34:11 PM EST
    But isn't it the main argument of the Clinton campaign that the superdelegates have the right to throw their support to whomever they choose.  

    It's possible they could all come out for Clinton in numbers overwhelming enough to throw her the nomination?

    It's funny now to read that if the supers declare their support for Obama, that somehow is an illegitimate result.

    What rubs me the wrong way is my sense that a Clinton nomination is the only outcome that many Clinton supporters will regard as legitimate.

    The Obama camp would like to believe that (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by angie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:44:11 PM EST
    but the fact is most Hillary supporters would be fine if Obama wins the nomination if he does with FL & MI counting in a meaningful way (revote or as is) and if the SDs aren't forced to declare earlier then they are required to.  How difficult is that to understand?  We want a nominee picked with every vote counting & with the SDs playing the role they were designed to play -- NOT a nominee picked without counting FL & MI and with the SDs being pressured to pick him.  If Obama is "inevitable" then he should not be worried about allowing ever vote to count and allowing the process to play out as it was designed to.  The fact is, it is the Obama camp who will not be happy with any nominee but Obama -- that is why they are bending the rules and blackmailing SDs, actions which are in direct opposition to the democratic process.

    I think you're reading this wrong (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by ChrisO on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:45:01 PM EST
    Speaking for myself, I've never felt that the supers going for Obama would be illegitimate. Dumb, but not illegitimate. The problem is with people like Reid and Pelosi demanding that they decide on a certain timetable. If the supers want to wait until the convention, they have every right to. And they may have their own reasons for wanting to, including venal ones like seeing what they can squeeze from each candidate.

    Obama Has Already Given SD's $700,000.00... (none / 0) (#131)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:14:07 PM EST
    It may be more by now.

    All the money in the world (5.00 / 0) (#194)
    by Mari on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:24:27 PM EST
    won't make up for being tied down with Obama's baggage (Wright, Ayers, Rezko). These scandals will really explode if he is the nominee. Can you imagine seeing television ads 24hrs/day with Wright saying "GD America".

    Obama probably will win before June anyway. (none / 0) (#51)
    by magster on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:38:54 PM EST
    Per DemConWatch, Obama is within 300 votes of clinching, and conservatively on track to win 270 pledged delegates by June 3, with about 30 more add-on superdelegates anticipated, six "pelosi-club" superdels who have stated they will vote the pledged delegate leader, and a story (audio link) that Obama plans on trickling out up around 20 superdelegates over the course of days every day up until May 6.

    Yeah, I know, "the math".

    I'll bite. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by katiebird on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:42:28 PM EST
    Why trickle?

    Momentum (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:45:40 PM EST
    I would imagine.

    I've noticed that every time Obama suffers a loss or a setback, another SD or two comes out in support of him.  Time release SD endorsements are more effective than a one-shot deal: he can use them when he needs them to keep the narrative going.


    Also message enhancement (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:54:02 PM EST
    Some will come out after they have perceived Hillary to have done something 'negative', and be sure and mention it over and over and over . . .

    Good catch on cheap-o time release SD Pain Killer (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:44:16 PM EST
    (And good analysis upstream and downstream on this.)

    This is so ineffective in what it's meant to do, I'd rather have the pain (thanks much) than the partial numbness.

    I can only hope the Dem war room that's been in the design stage for decades can finally be up and working this GE.

    I know, I know, the Feng Shui consultants keep dying of strokes, but rather than tank another election, can't we just, say, put the big board to work at least?


    um.... (none / 0) (#68)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:47:04 PM EST
    do you NOT see how people are reacting now when they call supes to end it in JUNE?

    could you imagine what would have happened if Obama rolled out 20 supers yesterday?

    look at these posts, they are calling for the supers to finish endorsing as soon as possible after the primaries and people are freaking out.

    no Obama can't roll out to many at once, people would ...well they'd post like they are now.

    but you can't really attack Obama if he just happens to get 2 endorsements yesterday, just happens to have 1 today, and hey look another 1-2 tomorrow.


    um ... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by katiebird on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:53:23 PM EST
    I don't care what individual SDs do.  They can time their pledges as they wish for all I care.  What I don't get is why the should be subjected to pressure to make their pledges any earlier than they (as individuals) want.

    um.... ok?


    because supers (none / 0) (#93)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:55:48 PM EST
    WILL have to decide the nominee and waiting till June means who ever they choose loses the summer to campaign.

    people have said let everyone vote. so the supers said fine.

    after June 3rd, everyone voted and the nominee needs to start campaigning against McCain, not spending the rest of the summer talking to supers.


    Yeah but... (none / 0) (#144)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:22:50 PM EST
    Since the Obamatrons and the DNC are so obsessed with RULES, why shouldn't they have thought about the RULES that dictate when they can schedule the Convention - and scheduled it earlier in the year?

    This is a mess of their own making, as is the FL/MI situation.


    Where? (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:53:53 PM EST
    Where was someone attacking Obama for bringing out supers now?  We are saying it's been a strategy of his campaign - every time he's down, he trots one or two out - changes the news cycle from "he got his butt kicked in PA" to "look - Supers are still supporting him!"

    Pointing out the obvious is not criticism.


    Yeah, he just happens to get endorsements (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:38:20 PM EST
    after he loses. What a coincidence.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#77)
    by magster on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:50:33 PM EST
    If I was on Obama's campaign, I'd have announced 11 supers yesterday and re-released the tape of Obama scratching his face (probably why I'll never be on a campaign...)

    A trickle I guess seems more respectful of the voter part of the process, keeps superdels in reserve to counter a bad news day or the long coveted Edwards endorsement of Clinton, and is a low key manner least likely to rankle Clinton supporters in the GE.


    Also less (none / 0) (#110)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:01:49 PM EST
    likey to force Clinton leaning superdelegates out in rebuttal.

    naw they tried to pressure her out (none / 0) (#119)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:06:50 PM EST
    once, it back fired.

    they won't take the chance, Obama is on pace to win by points, he doesn't need to win by knock out.

    in the NYT yesterday, they said he is switching people from at his HQ, from Hillary to McCain.

    they are basically going to ignore her and focus on the GE, and win on points. also they are going to out spend her like crazy, force her to try and keep up.


    magic number is 62 (none / 0) (#56)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:41:30 PM EST
    heh I was talking to BTD about this in the other post.

    when I told him Obama had about 20 supes lined up and is going to roll them out 1 by 1. and guess what

    he rolled about another one today >_<


    So he's still going to be more than 40 short? (none / 0) (#234)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:09:14 PM EST
    It's not about the most delegates, it's about enough delegates, so you're saying he still won't have enough?  Zzzzzzzz.  Wake me when there's noooooozzz.

    LOL (none / 0) (#123)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:10:41 PM EST
    Oh, how I remember those halcyon days when Obama supporters swore up and down that he had 50 superdelegates in his back pocket to be deployed at the time and place of his choosing.  How did that one turn out?  Kind of like the Al Gore endorsement, as I recall.

    Now the number is down to 20, I see, but the rumor has the same air of wishful thinking about it.  Well, good luck with it.  This all sort of has the ring of "I guess we'll let the little people vote, but we don't actually care what they say."


    How does this confer an advantage to Obama? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:40:41 PM EST
    They have not said that supers must select Obama. They only want them to make their choices known. Or do Hillary supporters accept as inevitable that if supers are asked to choose the majority will select Obama? If so, do Hillary supporters simply wish to delay the inevitable day of reckoning? If so, how is that helpful to anyone? That day is going to come sooner or later.

    Well, only because the names cited (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jim J on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:44:21 PM EST
    are Obama supporters, as is Dean himself. Look, the fix is clearly in, it's just a question of the endgame at this point and how badly it blows back on them.

    That's life (none / 0) (#72)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:48:01 PM EST
    How did they become Obama supporters? Maybe they prefer him as the nominee. Don't those politicians have a right to support a candidate?

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#114)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:03:32 PM EST
    They have the right to endorse, declare etc for whomever they want.  They also have the right to vote for their choice in November.

    So do I.  Hint: it won't be Obama.  :)


    So don't vote for Obama (none / 0) (#116)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:04:54 PM EST

    great idea (none / 0) (#132)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:15:29 PM EST

    Hill and OB are almost identical in platforms and McCain well he thinks "Great job Brownie" is really doing a great job.

    Makes a lot of sense to me that any HC voter would go with Johnny Mac.


    Who said (none / 0) (#141)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:21:51 PM EST
    we'd go to Johnny Mac? We can write her name in or not vote for the top of the ticket.  The Precious doesn't automatically get my vote - he has to earn it - and after all the stuff he's pulled, it would take a miracle.

    Um (none / 0) (#148)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:26:08 PM EST
    Um, because the RULES DNCites are so fond of embracing state that Supers are supposed to be able to announce their preferences at the Convention?  And because this is blatant hypocrisy on the part of Party leaders - clinging to some RULES and not others?

    Well, people quite often vote on emotion (none / 0) (#162)
    by mm on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:41:19 PM EST
    When you've been spit on non-stop for months, a lot of people might take that personally.  That's just a fact.  

    They've attacked my president, WJC, as a racist and they've continually attacked Senator Clinton with snide sexist remarks.  (Wasn't he so charming when he was pantomining ducking all those kitchen sinks being thrown at him by that crazy lady)  This makes me very angry.  If there's only one way to express my anger, so be it.  


    Under party RULES, the only actual vote ... (none / 0) (#159)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:35:53 PM EST
    ... takes place at the convention. Everything before that is just pledging, and pledges can change based on the circumstances at the time. Why should any superdelegate who wants to make an informed choice of nominee be forced to cast their vote before that?  

    Also, even if Obama appears on paper to have secured a majority of the pledges, he is not the nominee, and cannot even be the presumptive nominee, before the Convention -- unless Clinton concedes.

    And if the MI and FL delegations are not being counted, why should Clinton concede anything before the Convention, which according to party RULES provides the procedures for such issues to be resolved?

    It seems to me that Dean and Pelosi are trying to sidestep party rules and railroad the superdelegates, because they know they may not get their way if they actually follow the rules.

    Can someone start an online petition for Democrats to sign, to tell them to stop meddling?


    Political suicide (none / 0) (#61)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:43:35 PM EST
    The party "elders" assume their choice for the nomination will be the final outcome.  The Democratic Party would be divided for years.  I for one would register independent and would not vote for the POTUS if the SDs pick "the one we've been waiting for" nominee.  I might be so angry as to throw the baby with bathwater and vote for McCain instead of voting "present"

    I understand the anger, (none / 0) (#85)
    by pie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:53:32 PM EST
    but please keep the Supreme Court in mind.

    Anyone but McCain.


    Vote down ticket (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:55:54 PM EST
    not like Obama's supporters care . . .

    Well (none / 0) (#220)
    by sas on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:16:50 PM EST
    I would vote downticket, but my guy is Patrick Murphy and he is a big Obama supporter (even though my PA county, his territory - Bucks County, went 63-37 for Hillary on Tuesday).  I'm angry with him right now.

    He declared his support for Obama last August(after recieving 18, 826 reasons to do so in the form of a donation from the Obama campaign).  Screw what his constituents wanted.  Then he had the nerve in March to ask Phila ward leaders to hold off endorsing until after the primary - guess he wanted them to wait to vote as their constituents did.  OK for them, not OK for him.

    Murphy got 20,000 less votes than other Dems - even though he ran unopposed.  Maybe he'll need those 20,000 votes in November?

    I wanted to send him a message, so I didn't vote for him.  I know a bunch of people who wanted to send him a message.  He won by 1600 votes in 2006.....uh-oh, Patrick.


    I should have noted, I'm checking (none / 0) (#235)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:32:13 AM EST
    out the down ticket dems. Will not support Obama supporters unless they are 'reasonable'. I saw Murphy, he seems like he's gone beyond reasonable  ;)

    Are we expected to care more about that (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:04:34 PM EST
    than the leaders of the party?

    Both sides angry (none / 0) (#92)
    by Rashomon66 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:55:39 PM EST
    Both sides are saying this. If the Super D's choose Obama the Clinton voters say they will rise up and leave. If the Super D's choose Clinton the Obama voters say they will leave.
    Doesn't it seem a bit silly? I mean the people are voting - but there will be a winner. And frankly that winner should not have to be declared by the Super D's alone. Otherwise what the heck is the use of every having voted in the first place?

    But that is the way it turned out (none / 0) (#185)
    by wasabi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:13:52 PM EST
    "And frankly that winner should not have to be declared by the Super D's alone."

    Too bad that is what we are stuck with.  The SD's will decide.


    HELP in NC and Indiana (none / 0) (#67)
    by JON15 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:46:41 PM EST
    Please whoever can try to get to either state
    and campaign from the 3rd to 6th. We need to get
    as many people on the ground in both states as
    possible. It's the best way to help!!!!!

    He did say June (none / 0) (#70)
    by ineedalife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:47:33 PM EST
    I wish he would have phrased it, "Let the elections run their course and we will see where we are then."  That is how I read your excerpt, anyway.

    We Need The Addresses for These Three Clowns (none / 0) (#71)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:47:33 PM EST
    to write and voice our displeasure.  Since when is democracy and the rules of the democratic party not to be followed.

    Clinton's don't run party (none / 0) (#75)
    by Rashomon66 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:49:26 PM EST
    The primaries are over on June 3.
    It is not too much to ask the Super Delegates to make their decisions then.
    The only reason the 'elders' would tell the Super D's to hold off would be so that Clinton could spend time wooing them and making the case that she should be the nominee. Other than that the only reason would be to see if some revelation comes along about Obama that would make the Super D's turn away from him.
    The fact is, this is not Clinton's party. It is the Democratic party and the 'elders' are in charge. Super D's could hold off and that is their right. But they should not have to for Clinton's sake.

    To force the SDs to decide before resolving (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:57:11 PM EST
    MI and FL is obscene.  That's what the party "elders" should be concerned about.  There are two important states that need to be in the Democratic Party in November.  If they give the delegates to BO and HRC for the FL votes and an agreement for MI, then the elders have done their job.

    Resolve FL and MI first (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by rnibs on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:53:41 PM EST
    The problem with Dean, Pelosi and Reid is that they're worrying over the wrong problem.  Solve the FL MI problem first. THEN worry about the SD's.

    They could be true party leaders by just coming out and saying we have to seat FL and MI and allow their votes and delegates to count in the total.  

    Instead, they're hoping SD's will make that decision unnecessary for them to address.  The thing is, they'll have to address it anyway, so why are they procrastinating?


    Not My Reading (none / 0) (#177)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:02:38 PM EST
    I understood Dean to mean that by the end of June the nominee will be picked. That would include deciding FL and MI first and then asking the SD's to choose by the end of June.

    But Dean Has Said (none / 0) (#164)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:42:56 PM EST
    That FL and MI will be resolved by the end of June. I do not expect him to send his letter until that is decided. All in all this is nothing new.

    DAVID BENDER: Senator Clinton said, I think just yesterday to Keith Olbermann, that she was committed in staying in this race until Florida and Michigan are resolved...ahhh...
    HOWARD DEAN: I think that's going to happen in June.
    BENDER: You do? You think that will happen in June through the- through the bylaws and through the...
    DEAN: Yeah. I'm hoping- I mean, I believe that there will be a rules committee meeting and we'll take up the question of Florida and Michigan. Michigan has just sent in a challenge and we hope to do that- hope to take up(fades out)- both in the same meeting. So, you know I think that will happen, I think that all the pieces will be in place by the end of June

    Air America


    Dean also said (none / 0) (#179)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:04:18 PM EST
    That the Michigan and Florida delegations would be seated - to the state parties last fall

    OK (none / 0) (#180)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:06:09 PM EST
    But that is over, now we are here. Do you think Dean is lying?

    You are misreading this (none / 0) (#205)
    by mm on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:51:44 PM EST
    Dean has explicitly said many times in the past that FL and MI will be resolved after the nominee is chosen.  

    The sequence for Dean is; first, get all the SD's to decide, then deal with FL and MI - as Dashle said, FL and MI will be seated at the convention, it just has to be done in a way that doesn't impact the final outcome.

    There is only one possible outcome with that scenario, and everyone knows this.  

    This is unacceptable.  Every day that passes with FL and MI ignored imposes a very real penalty on Senator Clinton.  This isn't rocket science.


    OK (none / 0) (#209)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:23:04 PM EST
    But do you have a link to that. All I have read suggests the opposite.  Besides it makes no sense at all to resolve FL and MI after the nominee is chosen. What would the point of that be?

    are the supposed leaders trying to rush this around.  Judging by your post rashamon, you are an Obama supporter and maybe have become a little edgy as it seems there is the possibility Obama might lose the nomination.  That would be best for the party, but it is only fair that this plays out on a natural course and without cheerleading from leaders with an agenda.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#153)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:29:02 PM EST
    Sorry for repeating myself, but it appears to this HRC supporter a bit improper that Reid, Dean, et al, are trying to force the Supers on this in violation of the Party rules, which state Supers don't have to declare until the Convention.

    Either cling to the RULES or don't cling to them, but this half-assed business is just a mockery of Democracy, frankly.


    I support both (none / 0) (#154)
    by Rashomon66 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:29:30 PM EST
    I don't see how a June deadline is rushing around.
    I agree the Super D's should not be rushed at this stage. I also agree Clinton has a right to stay in as long as there are votes to be cast and primaries to run.
    But my larger point was that while we need to let the Super D's do their own thing in their own time the party cannot do what Clinton wants because she is a Clinton. She does not run the party. The 'elders' actually do run it and they can certainly ask the Super D's to consider by June. Especially if Obama has a good lead.
    I voted for Obama but would vote for Clinton in the General if she were nominated.

    How does someone FORCE people to decide (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:51:46 PM EST
    in a democracy?  Just asking.  Are we going to waterboard to get them to fess up to who they really support and are attempting to hide from us all(snark)?

    Water boarding (none / 0) (#98)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:58:12 PM EST
    Is it a sport when you use one word ;)? (none / 0) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:00:23 PM EST
    Like boogieboarding?

    Ha Ha (none / 0) (#181)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:06:58 PM EST
    See the newest event at the 2012 Olympics

    ("And amazingly, the Americans have swept the medal contest in the inaugural waterboarding competition - Gold goes to Bush; Silver to Cheney; and the Bronze to Rumsfeld, who just eked out a victory over Rice in a barn-burner!")


    Huh? (none / 0) (#79)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:51:52 PM EST
    How does asking the SD to decide by the end of June contradict this?:

    Here's a thought, let Obama defeat Clinton, if he can,

    By June 3 the voters will have already decided.

    What about FL and MI? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:59:12 PM EST
    According To Dean (none / 0) (#169)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:48:19 PM EST
    That will be resolved in June.

    How about the converse? (none / 0) (#102)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:59:35 PM EST
    Do You Mean (none / 0) (#127)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:12:23 PM EST
    Let Clinton defeat Obama if she can? Still, maybe I am missing something here but why would the SD's want to wait until the convention if they are basing their votes on delegates or popular vote. Both will be tallied soon after June 3rd.

    I just do not understand why this is a contentious thing to ask for.


    Yes AND (none / 0) (#152)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:28:59 PM EST
    The PLEOS are free to do whatever they want, when they want. Vote for George McGovern if they want (who flew 30 combat missions and brought his crew home safely everytime, unlike John McCain).

    They can also change their mind up until the convention. What you are hearing are people who are not sure of that their favored will get sufficient votes and want to exhaust every avenue, including PLEOS changing their minds and voting for their favored candidate at the convention. However, this is a two way street. Its just as easy for PLEO 1 has declared for Candidate 2 and then decides at the convention to vote for Candidate 1 as it is to do the converse. Then what? Scream PLEO 1 is a back stabbing political hack?

    This is going to end badly I am afraid, because too many will let their idea of perfect kill what might be good and certainly better than McCain. And they will blame everyone but themselves. Move over Ralph Nader.

    Me, I am voting for one of two good Democrats in the fall and against John more of the same McCain. But i am not in the tank for either Obama or Clinton.


    Yes (none / 0) (#168)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:47:18 PM EST
    I agree that it could end badly, but I do not think it will. It seems to me that this will be over by the end of June and either Obama or Clinton will step down and back the winner. I expect a joint ticket, and could care less, at this point, who is on top.

    Sanity! Hooray! (none / 0) (#170)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:52:38 PM EST
    Delegates have until the Convention (none / 0) (#120)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:07:10 PM EST
    to make their final decision.  

    We they have done this for Gore? (none / 0) (#124)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:11:38 PM EST

    You can't blame Dean (none / 0) (#126)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:12:20 PM EST
    after all, in the last election the more "electable" candidate got beat by what may be one of the worst administrations in the history of our great nation.  

    I do agree however, that the race should go on until one side concedes.  The dem will get a bump when the other drops out and more importantly either will win every debate against mccain.

    Whoooah lets not assume they will support Obama (none / 0) (#138)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:20:54 PM EST
    and if they do they will anger the Clinton Dems anyway least of the Party's worries at that stage, to bad they did not feel the compulsion to demand Mich and Fla be seated.

    It's getting ugly (none / 0) (#160)
    by dwmorris on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:36:51 PM EST
    Reid, Pelosi, and Dean are cowards.  They won't stand up to the Bush administration ... and they won't stand up to the Obama campaign.

    Olbermann and Fineman were taking yesterday about behind the scenes threats of "retribution" (Olbermann's word, not mine) if Hillary won't drop out.  They didn't elaborate on the nature of the threats, but they presumably involve political retaliation against Clinton and her key supporters if they continue the race.  I also recently heard for the first time on cable news (forget where) a clear pronouncement about the likelihood of riots if Obama is "cheated out of the nomination" (defined as leading in pledged delegates after the last primary and being denied the nomination by the super delegates).  In essence, Obama partisans (in collusion with supporters in the MSM) have re-defined winning in terms that make Obama's nomination a fait accompli ... and a narrative is now circulating that radical and/or racial elements of the coalition may resort to violence if Hillary can't be bullied into withdrawing and the Obama camp fails to dictate the outcome in Denver.  Very disturbing stuff.

    Doesn't that say everything about Obama (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Mari on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:18:53 PM EST
    He and his accomplices are no better than the Republicans. It just reminds me of Florida 2000 all over again.

    except (none / 0) (#192)
    by miguelito on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:22:00 PM EST
    in a way, they are even worse because of the hypocrisy.  You would expect it from the Bushies

    I don't recall ... (none / 0) (#229)
    by dwmorris on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:56:43 PM EST
    any Republicans making oblique threats about potential rioting if Bush wasn't seated.  Plus, the demonstrations on the Democratic side were all peaceful, as far as I remember.  Anyone know the historical details?

    It is disturbing (none / 0) (#174)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:55:46 PM EST
    But it is good to see these rumors and threats being brought out in the open where they can be discussed and made known. Maybe that will help give the SDs the spine their "leadership" lacks.

    if they keep pushing this retribution (none / 0) (#187)
    by miguelito on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:18:25 PM EST
    I will seriously consider voting for McCain in the GE, these fanatics are dangerous.

    It's (none / 0) (#211)
    by cal1942 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:30:31 PM EST
    what we've come to expect from the Jacobin element that supports Obama.  Tom Hayden (Jacobin emeritus) added his 2 cents worth yesterday.

    I saw these people (Tom Hayden among them) ruin Democratic chances in 1968 and helped put Richard Nixon in the White House.

    The Democratic Party, in some ways, is still trying to recover from that event.

    There've been threats by certain Obama supporters to disrupt the Democratic convention since this past winter when Hillary was the frontrunner.

    Of course Obama did nothing to discourage them and even helped when he said, in public, that many of his supporters would never back Hillary Clinton.  I see that as nothing less than extortion.

    This is serious and this is what we're up against.

    The idea of political retribution, use of disruptive tactics and other forms of extortion smacks of a reign of terror. The Jacobins hell bent to purify. Not the guillotine but damaging nonetheless.

    It's not as far fetched as it sounds. It's happened before and it wasn't all that long ago.


    Disturbing (none / 0) (#215)
    by sas on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:55:44 PM EST
    and irresponsible.  Anyone making remarks like that should be fired.  Jack Cafferty of CNN is one of them ...

    really? (none / 0) (#171)
    by sarissa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:53:27 PM EST
    You think this should go to the convention then?  

    No thank you.

    "It's a convention, not a coronation".TM (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:01:54 PM EST
    Dems in congress are also saying (none / 0) (#178)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:04:00 PM EST
    major health care reform is unlikely even with a Dem president.  I saw that this morning, now I can't find the link.

    So is this an attempt to tell people that one of the main areas of contention between Clinton and Obama no longer matters?  

    But...but...Harry and Louise! (none / 0) (#207)
    by echinopsia on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:03:20 PM EST
    Actually (none / 0) (#208)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:18:35 PM EST
    The message may have gotten muddled.  See here.

    Please tell me (none / 0) (#191)
    by wasabi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:21:05 PM EST
    Please tell me this is parody.


    Not Parody (none / 0) (#193)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:23:13 PM EST
    USE YOUR MATH (none / 0) (#204)
    by SAINTIXE56 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:50:38 PM EST
    OBAMA CANT SUCCEED IN NOVEMBER WITHOUT HILLARY VOTERS....and Hillary knows that if she is the nominee through the SD alone, she will not get the Obama voters....tough luck.Seems the Clintons have a lot of "friends" who are ready for retribution. It is going to be fun. For me I knpow that fair or cheat, if Hillary is the nominee, McCain gets my ballot ...and I am not alone.

    These (none / 0) (#213)
    by sas on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:53:42 PM EST
    people are total idiots.  I have no respect for any of them.

    Their lack of deference for the process makes me ashamed of them.  

    I still am thinking of leaving the party after this election and becoming an independent.  The penalty on Florida and Michigan, the ridiculous way of assigning delegates to an area based on past voting record rather than population, the proportional assignment of delegates, this letter thing above, the fact that the party elders are behaving like babies who really want their way - NOW, their impartiality,.....ugh.  This is the best the party can do?

    My Two Cents....... (none / 0) (#214)
    by HsLdyAngl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:54:09 PM EST
    Speaking for myself only (as BTD would post), I have been lurking on TL for some time now in order to understand the motivation and rationale of diehard Hillary supporters and what prompts you to be so dedicated to her candidacy.  To be clear, I am a very strong Obama supporter and I totally respect your choice in supporting Hillary.
    That is why I lurk, rather than to aggressively debate you in your "own Hillary home" on TL.  I would rather remain silent and learn from you, rather than to antagonize you or your choice of candidate.

    With that caveat being made, I am compelled to share some of my thoughts with you at this time on the current thread of super delegates.  I have to sincerely wonder why so many Hillary supporters are against the supers from declaring their choices now and are even more hostile to Dean/Reid/Pelosi considering writing a letter to the supers after all the primaries are completed in June?

    I have to ask each Hillary supporter, "Did you object to the supers who endorsed Hillary even before the primaries got started in January?"  These supers, who declared for Hillary even before or during the early primary season, did not even consider the vote of the Democratic electorate when casting their votes for Hillary.  So what is your problem now with the supers coming out for either candidate, after a majority of Democrats have made their voices heard in the past primaries?

    The only answer that I have come to is that you realize that Hillary has lost the nomination and you are attempting to forestall the eventual outcome.  Your Hillary life lines have been dwindling has the primary process unfolds.  Sadly, the only life lines that are now left for you are prolongation of the supers from declaring, the FL/MI issue, and the math juggling of the popular vote.  The electability issue is an argument of opinions, probabilities, and rationalizations, and not concrete facts.

    I don't mean this in a negative way, but what I am seeing here, in the posts of many Hillary supporters, are the stages of grief being revealed.  Currently, many Hillary supporters are in Stage 2 - Anger and Stage 3 - Bargaining.  This current flap over Super delegates is the bargaining stage in which the most likely outcome of a Hillary nomination defeat is prolonged, so that the reality of the situation does not have to be addressed.  

    I wish you well in your quest to secure a victory for Hillary, as I too, will work just as hard for an Obama victory.

    Thank you.

    Nobody has won (none / 0) (#216)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:57:55 PM EST
    or lost yet.  9 more states to go.

    So just chill out.


    Strawman (none / 0) (#224)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:03:46 PM EST
    People aren't saying the SDs can't go ahead and declare (nice strawman), but rather they can not be forced to declare early. Per the rules, they don't need to declare before the convention.

    Party leaders shouldn't meddle because whatever happens they risk alienating half the party who may come away thinking the PARTY leaders (Dean, Reid, Pelosi) pushed for one candidate over another. They need to make sure that everyone believes their candidate was treated fairly and the best way to do that is to stay out of it.

    No one has won and no one has lost. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. If you want to insist Obama has won, show me the delegates.

    And I'm not a Clinton supporter, but a realist.


    The issue as I see it ... (none / 0) (#230)
    by dwmorris on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:12:32 PM EST
    is that the effort to get the SDs to declare ASAP is running in parallel with a second campaign to dictate the algorithm with which they should make their decision.  The net goal of the aggregate campaign is to make the Obama nomination fait accompli.  Pelosi and Dean have now back-pedaled, but the narrative is now firmly entrenched and endlessly repeated in the MSM --- the csandidate with the most pledged delegates is the rightful winner (obviously, since that will be Obama) and the use of any subjective criteria to make the decision (such as electability) will lead to a massive fracture of the Democratic Party and potentially riots in Denver.  Accordingly, there is going to be push back against any effort to dictate anything to the super delegates.  It's all about perceived hidden agendas.

    But The Writing (none / 0) (#219)
    by HsLdyAngl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:07:37 PM EST
    Is on the wall and the fat lady is warming up.  I am very pragmatic when it comes to politics and I would be the first to acknowledge this fact, if the situation was reversed between Clinton and Obama, as much as it would pain me to accept the reality of it.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#221)
    by sas on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:20:40 PM EST
    for the psychoanalysis.

    I'll schedule an appointment again with you in spring 2012.  I should be able to move on by then.

    Great To Hear That........ (none / 0) (#222)
    by HsLdyAngl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:26:05 PM EST
    Acceptance is the last stage in the grief process. :-)

    When will Dean, Pelosi, Reid declare? (none / 0) (#223)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:50:13 PM EST
    I read a quote from Ausman on this earlier which was all kinds of wonderful as it asks Dean to declare first:

    "DNC Chair Howard Dean has asked all the superdelegates to declare their preferences as soon as possible.  After Howard Dean announces his preference, I will think about making up my mind and announce mine.

    "My choice will be based on the following three criteria:  one, which candidate is most likely to get 270 electoral votes and win the Presidency; two, which candidate will help us pick up US Senate seats; and, three, which candidate will help us pick up US Representative seats in the House."

    Reid, Pelosi, and Dr. Dean . . . (none / 0) (#231)
    by Doc Rock on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:43:17 PM EST
    . . . here's a letter for you: Pull this crap and I, for one, will never vote Democrat again--I'll vote Green, or Libertarian, or whatever, and only give money to the ACLU.

    The Pelosi-Reid leadership has been a huge disappointment and Dr. Dean's 50 state strategy started off great, but wound up in the asylum.  Get a clue, would you!  'Rules is rules' as the Obamacans used to chant!

    Doc Rock
    (also a descendant of the Huntington Brush's)

    Postive campaigning (none / 0) (#233)
    by Donna Darko on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:55:24 PM EST
    Why can't they both just talk about progressive policies and how they're better than McCain? That way they can win over every group except the 22% who are still pro-Bush.

    Are there campaigning rules that say they have to be negative?

    Yeah, I read that diary the other day too (none / 0) (#236)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:57:29 AM EST
    There's parsing and then there is olympic parsing.