Superdelegate Endorsements Today

Nice get for Obama. Baron Hill is a conservative Dem in the hard fought (it has flipped in each of the last three elections) Southern Indiana 9th District. I assume that absent the repudiation of Rev. Wright, this would not have been publically announced.

Clinton picked up the endorsement of Bill George, President of the PA AFL-CIO and Rep. Braley of Iowa came out for Obama.

Update (TL): If there are more today, we'll update here.

Chelsea gets her mom a new superdelegate:


Chelsea Clinton just bagged a superdelegate for her mother. The youngest Clinton is campaigning today in San Juan, Puerto Rico. A few moments ago, at the Universidad del Sagrado Corazon, Luisette Cabanas, an unpledged superdelegate, announced her support for Clinton, giving the campaign the majority of automatic** delegates on the island.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Open Thread | Will CAP's John Podesta Be Attacked Too? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Funny, I was listening to NPR (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:23:21 AM EST
    this morning and they mentioned casually that Easley endorsed HRC. Then they did a whole on-the-field report about a State Rep in KY that endorsed Obama. I thought that was funny. The governor gets a passing mention and the state rep gets a whole interview.  

    NPR=MSNBC (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:27:25 AM EST
    I know. It just never (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:31:24 AM EST
    ceases to amaze me, I suppose. It shouldn't.

    To be fair (none / 0) (#34)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:49:17 AM EST
    They have been much more balanced. Although the last month I am starting to see a slight lean, but let's not get carried away, they ain't no MSNBC!

    That's MY Congressman (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by BGP on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:38:45 AM EST
    and I'm not very happy about it. We only have two Democratic Congressmen in Kentucky and both have gone Obama. Not sure why when the latest SUSA poll shows Clinton up by 36 points here. I've written an angry letter.

    I, too, have perceived NPR in the pocket for Obama. Now there's this thing with Rudin yesterday calling Clinton Glenn Close in Fatal Attaction. I'm listening to a lot more music these days.


    Why? (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Davidson on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:49:44 AM EST

    Obama gave him lots of money (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:32:06 AM EST
    through Obama's PAC. This page lists the donations by both PACs to members of the Senate and the House. According to this, Obama's PAC has given $12,250 to Hill. Hillary gave him $2500. Hillary got outbid for the endorsement. Who says Obama is about "new style politics"?

    Ahhhhhhhhhhhh............ (none / 0) (#92)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:36:40 AM EST
    Makes sense.

    I did wonder (none / 0) (#177)
    by BGP on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:42:15 PM EST
    whether money might be involved, but my Congressman who endorsed Obama, Ben Chandler, isn't listed on the PAC page.

    rooge04, I don't think he's too dumb. He's a bluedog who manages to be successful in a state run by Mitch McConnell. But I did think the endorsement was sort of odd.


    He didn't sound like (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:51:58 AM EST
    the brightest bulb either. Said something like "If so and so can endorse him, so can I." No actual reason was given. Not even the old adage of changing how things are done in Washington!

    Your congessman Hill (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by gabbyone on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:56:06 AM EST
    I just talked to a cousin in the same district you are and she was really surprised by Hill. She said her friends think he is pandering to the Bloomington area.  In her community, she said
    people were not buying the 20 year connection to Wright and although she didn't think they were high on Hillary either, most people seem to be
    choosing her over Obama.  She did say a lot of
    them will probably vote McCain in November.

    KO Gave Rudin A "Worst Person" Award (none / 0) (#37)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:52:21 AM EST
    for that statement.  I was surprised since he is so in the tank for obama.

    KO is a total hypocrite (none / 0) (#145)
    by Xeno on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:19:23 PM EST
    After all the vicious nonsense he has spewed about Hillary, from that idiotic "Special comment" to calling for a Super Delegate to beat her into submission, KO has no right to berate anyone else. Was there any substantive difference between Rudin's comment and what KO said last week, which many took to be a call for violence (and perhaps murder) against Clinton?

    KO is now worse than O'Reilly, in my opinion. He is more slanted, more bombastic, more self-righteously hypocritical and far less self aware than his nemesis. His use of Murrow's sign-off is a denigration of a great journalist's legacy.


    The norm (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by stefystef on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:41:28 AM EST
    Any endorsement for Hillary is treated passively, but Obama endorsements are heralded and lauded like a knight bowing to a king.

    Hillary is going to get more endorsements.  And IN will still go to Hillary.  

    The Magical Mystery Tour is coming to a halt...


    Magical Mystery Tour (none / 0) (#99)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:39:17 AM EST
    wiping my coffee off

    Good one.

    I agree.  Newt Gingrich thinks she'll take the nomination.  :)

    Said so right on The View.

    I laughed.  I think she will.  I think we're about to see phase 3.

    Hillary is working the "vote for a Dem" storyline like mad.  :)


    I emailed NRPs Ombudsman ( a woman actually) (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by suisser on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:53:00 AM EST
    in March to protest specific instances of blatant pandering to the Obama campaign and got back a reply including a email circulated in January within NPR whining about how HRC had been "rude" to the producers about scheduling interviews.
    It was unbelievable. I was very disappointed.

    I emailed the ombudsman yesterday. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Iphie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:11:24 AM EST
    This is the response I got. There's just too much to comment on here, (starting with "before the Hillary campaign and Media Matters made a big deal about it" -- 'cause you know, the problem is the response to the statement, not the statement itself), and the email doesn't address my biggest problem with his statement (the pervasive violent imagery used against Clinton) so I'll just present it as is.
    Below is a response from Mr. Rudin regarding his recent comment;

    I'm sorry you interpreted my comment as offensive. It's not what I was saying. Below is a copy of a note I sent to someone yesterday morning, before the Hillary campaign and Media Matters made a big deal about it:

    Dear __________,

    On second thought, the comparison is not one I wish I had made. I was, in retrospect, trying to be too cute by half. Frankly, I'm tired of the "when will Hillary drop out" conversations that have been going on since New Hampshire -- as in, well, if she loses NH, she's finished. If she loses Ohio, or Texas, she's gone. I wanted to make the point that she's not leaving the race anytime soon, nor should she. She wins in Pennsylvania by ten points and people still want to know when she's getting out? Nonsense. But I think, as you point out, that I damaged my case by making an unfortunate Glenn Close comparison.

    In my heart of hearts, I didn't see, and I don't see, my comment as being sexist. If anything, I was trying to make the point that sorry, you're not going to get rid of her. This is only the seventh inning. This race hasn't been going on "too long." In fact, these states -- Indiana, NC, Oregon, etc. -- haven't been part of the conversation for decades. Let the people have their say and then we'll see who should drop out.

    This will be part of my "Political Junkie" column this week.

    Anyway, you now have a bird's eye view of my thought processes, imperfect as they were. I would love to continue this conversation if you have any desire.


    So he's still tring to have his waffle (none / 0) (#95)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:37:20 AM EST
    too.  So is he going on NPR to apologize?

    What a jerk.  I'm sorry for his constituents.


    Jeez (none / 0) (#172)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:26:23 PM EST
    An "unfortunate comparison" to an infamous bunny-boiling female stalker was made. One for which Mr. Rudin himself bears no responsibility.

    Just like "mistakes were made" by no one in particular about Iraq, Katrina, etc.


    NPR did do a great piece on (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:53:10 AM EST
    Clinton this morning, following her from the Governor's endorsement in N.C. to several stops in Indiana, the whole piece was about how hard she is working, how many hours she puts in, the press can't keep up with her.  Their piece on Obama was about Wright, blah blah but to me the take away was that Clinton is a hard worker and a fighter, Obama, not so much!

    NPR are so in the tank for Clinton then! (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:09:06 AM EST

    Wonder who's got more machine behind them (none / 0) (#38)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:52:26 AM EST
    for getting out the vote:  the guv or the rep?

    She got a lot of attention (none / 0) (#58)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:13:11 AM EST
    the day before.  Of course, Obama supporting writers focused on the pansy party.  :)

    Actually it was touching (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:19:24 AM EST
    Because remember how they were all up in arms in SC when Obama had McClurkin campaigning? They were screaming for him to stop it, that it was offensive to the GLB community. So I understand why the "pansy" comment is so bad.

    BTW in case its not obvious I am being totally snarky here. The hypocrisy of the Obama supporters on this is cutting the oxygen to my brain.


    LOL* (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:40:43 AM EST
    Doesn't matter.  Voters vote.  And he's a race-car driver.

    NC understands all about their own governor.  Race car drivers get to be politically incorrect.

    Sorry, but that's just the way of the world.  :)


    You're kidding, right? (none / 0) (#67)
    by HeadScratcher on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:18:40 AM EST
    Yesterday (Tuesday) was all about Hillary and the endoresement, etc...

    Let's face it: Nothing is ever good enough for those we support and nothing is ever bad enough for those we don't support.


    I am not kidding (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:24:14 AM EST
    I stopped listening to NPR because they seemed totally in the tank for Obama to me.
    maybe they have reconsidered.
    maybe I will visit again after the election.

    Yes, I'm still not finished (none / 0) (#104)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:41:38 AM EST
    discussing how the tide has turned.  :)

    I loved those few days.  


    NPR has been (none / 0) (#74)
    by Andy08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:20:57 AM EST
    doing biased reporting for a while, Michelle Norris, Michelle Martin, Neal Conan; even Maura Liason. It's sad; I have even stop listening to them.

    Steve Inskeep is okay; the only one so far hasn't dive into the Obama lovefest.


    Par for the course.... (none / 0) (#78)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:23:40 AM EST
    but perhaps for different reasons now that the three-ring-circus taking place between O and his pastor is shedding a different light on the HOPE, UNITY, NOT-A-POLITICIAN Obama. This dirty-laundry tossing at each other, is unprecedentedly the lowest of the lowest in modern political history. Yet the media, after having put themselves (happily) out on a limb for their annointed candidate, can not loose face so drastically, never mind their integrity as journalists, which has eroded with each out turn of this, charismatic but very flimsy on issues, opportunistic candidate. So goes the prestige of those up to now, seemingly rational politicians who have endorsed him. I don't think they want to take the fall.

    "lowest in modern political history" (none / 0) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:25:06 AM EST
    oh man
    how old ARE you?

    Whaaa??? (none / 0) (#91)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:34:58 AM EST
    I second Capt Howdy:

    Surely you can come to grips with the idea that there have been political races you weren't involved in that happened perhaps before you were born, right?

    This political season is one of the tamer ones, and for this reason when real politics rears its ugly (but familiar) head, it makes it seem much worse than the kid-gloving it actually is.

    Hillary has been COMPLETELY holding back, kitchen sink imagery aside. She realizes that destroying Obama would make him a victim and would end her campaign. She's been walking the knife's edge for a few months now, and getting the feel for a massive campaign in her name. She'll be ready when she wins the nomination.


    You are (none / 0) (#127)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:58:57 AM EST
    correct, but there are ways for them to turn the corner.

    These are professionals.

    They'll find the way.

    Hillary has to do her part, too.  She has to give them the "right stuff" to work with, and she is doing her job in that regard.

    I like to read Maureen Dowd for a cue on this.  She's so .... transparent?  Is that a fair word?

    Anyway, Maureen is noting how bored Obama is.  She said last night that he looked as though he'd like to be a "past president" already.  :)

    Her analysis today of his emotional background was actually quite devastating.  It not only humanized Obama, it made him look as though he needs a good 12-step program to recover.  *haha

    So there are hard-core pros who know how to navigate these waters.

    I'm watching to see them slowly spin out of Obamamania.


    That's his pattern (none / 0) (#148)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:26:14 PM EST
    "Anyway, Maureen is noting how bored Obama is.  She said last night that he looked as though he'd like to be a "past president" already.  :)"

    He doesn't stay in any one job long before he's off to his next "ambition".  I've thought all along that he is desperate to reach the place Bill Clinton is in his life, which is why he broke his promise to Illinois and isn't even doing his job in the Senate, let alone wanting to give them their full 6 years.

    I fear if Obama were to get all the way to the Whitehouse, he'd be bored after 1.5 years and start writing his memoirs...of course, those would be as fictional as his autobiographical publications are, but this time the people would have witnessed the truth.


    About Obama's memoirs (none / 0) (#166)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:08:06 PM EST
    I also have an aversion to those who write their life stories before they're 50.  And he's already done two autobiographies.  It's spelled massive e-g-o and turned me off as soon as I heard this.  I have other historical examples of guys who have done this, and they all ended up taking others down with them -- because it's all about them, not about others.

    Lowest in modern political history? (none / 0) (#173)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:29:43 PM EST
    I wish.

    Is it possible that events that occurred in my 52 year lifetime are no longer part of "modern political history"?

    If so, I'm sending myself to the glue factory.


    Meting them out (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:28:42 AM EST
    One day at a time....

    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:32:54 AM EST
    I love the sort of thinking which says that Obama could clinch the nomination today if he wanted to, but he prefers to strategically roll out the endorsements as slowly as possible just to let the process keep going.  Because, you know, the extended primary is doing Obama so much good.

    I guess it must be fun to believe that Obama is so masterful that he's able to toy with the entire process like this, because I can't think of any other reason why otherwise intelligent people would fall for this sort of gamesmanship.  Does no one remember the 50 superdelegates Obama supposedly had in his pocket back before TX and OH?

    I think this was the deal (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:34:36 AM EST
    for the Wright repudiation.

    Don't you?


    Maybe (none / 0) (#21)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:40:56 AM EST
    I mean, it's sort of hard to believe Obama would have played it any differently if the Baron Hill endorsement were not at issue.  I could certainly see someone like Hill waiting to see how the Wright issue plays out before announcing his endorsement.

    I actually think the Hill endorsement is pretty telling because the guy is putting his money where his mouth is, in terms of declaring who he'd like to have at the top of the ticket as he seeks reelection in the ultimate swing district.  There have been plenty of endorsements from Congressfolks of that profile, but mostly prior to the Wright controversy.  When he says he'd rather run on the Obama ticket - Wright and all - than the Clinton ticket, even at this point in the game, that says a lot to me.


    Clueless (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Davidson on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:53:55 AM EST
    When he says he'd rather run on the Obama ticket - Wright and all - than the Clinton ticket, even at this point in the game, that says a lot to me.

    That he's clueless about how the media and the GOP will rip him to the shreds in the GE?  Obama will not win the GE, no matter what person comes out for him.  After this primary season, the lack of basic understanding of this fact amongst so many top Dems doesn't surprise me.  Disturbs the hell out of me, but doesn't surprise me.


    I think the problem is (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:57:05 AM EST
    you are assuming its a fact. that could be why you are disturbed that other people don't share in your opinion.

    Right, that's it! (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Davidson on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:19:01 AM EST
    Me and my silly opinions.  They're not remotely based reality.  I take it back.  Obama will win!  Win, I tell you!  It's not like McCain isn't adored by the media and the GOP doesn't have a track record for being absolutely ruthless!  Heavens no.

    Obama, a man whose based his entire campaign on himself rather than substance, experience, or policy (smart considering he's a novice in experience and anemic in actual accomplishment), and whose close, long-term associations to Wright and his church, Rezco, Chicago machine politics, and Ayers won't blow up in his face, proving lethal to a blank canvas candidate.  Especially against the mythical maverick, McCain, a damn war hero.

    I'm disturbed not because people don't share my pitiful little opinion, but because we, as a country, cannot afford another Republican administration and Obama will hand it over on a silver platter.  Hint: When MA--the bluest of blue states--becomes a battleground after the Bush years for crying out loud, it spells absolute disaster.  Don't take my opinion for it, check out SUSA polls (Mind you, these polls are before the GOP truly takes on Obama, with the media in tow).


    Correction (none / 0) (#73)
    by Davidson on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:20:39 AM EST
    All those associations will blow up in his face.

    Oh, and the reckless lying about everything under the sun.


    Can see the ads now (none / 0) (#152)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:35:54 PM EST
    With all those denials, then admissions, then denials again, followed by the "can't denounce", "would denounce if", "divorce". Those are just the Obama clips...then just slide in the Wright statements.

    He can't handle it, and Axelrod won't be able to continue using the Republican tactics for his own benefit..


    Of course (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:42:28 AM EST
    What I meant was Hill said if you do it I will publically endorse you. Of course Obama was not just looking at Hill's endorsement.

    Sure (none / 0) (#128)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:00:42 PM EST
    I do.  The fact that he can talk Hill into it is also to his credit.

    Personally?  Big deal.


    Both campaigns certainly have some (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:12:32 AM EST
    super delegates in their back pockets where they can control the timing of any announcements to try to manage news cycles.  I think to believe otherwise is naive.  

    On the other hand, obviously if Obama had enough to seal the deal right now that were actually willing to announce their support then he would do go ahead and announce them.


    first (none / 0) (#16)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:37:28 AM EST
    no one says he can clinch now, just when you add the rest of the delegates from the states to vote, and the projected add ons, its easier to see Obama getting the 55 needed for 2,025 then hillary getting the almost 200 more supes she needs to hit it.

    but yeah tomorrow right tomorrow is the day the supers start coming out for Hillary!


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:42:41 AM EST
    "No one says he can clinch now."  Tell me, do you really think the Obama supporters on the blogs are doing nothing more than going around claiming that it's easier to see Obama winning the nomination than Hillary?  How stupid do you think I am?

    I didn't say he wouldn't clinch (none / 0) (#30)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:44:59 AM EST
    I said no one is saying tomorrow Obama will have what he needs to be the nominee, hence the NOW.

    Obama will Clinch but he needs the rest of the states to vote to get their delegates, as someone else noted here Obama is now tracking the delegates he needs to win

    288 to go, he will get 75-100 of those just on tuesday alone


    LOL. Yes. (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:44:21 AM EST
    He gets closer to the magic number every day. That magic number neither one of the can reach until the supers all decide. If they are all behind him what are they waiting for??

    No no you don't get it (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:47:34 AM EST
    Because if you stop dead short 1 mm from the finish line you have won IF you got there before the person who actually CROSSES the finish line! ;)

    Since when does Obama (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:40:09 AM EST
    Only need 55 more?

    They always forget (none / 0) (#101)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:40:36 AM EST
    those silly voters in FL/MI.

    With their delegates, the count looketh quite different.


    Obama needs 293 to clinch (none / 0) (#113)
    by magster on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:48:59 AM EST
    and is projected (by Open Left) to pick up 241 pledged delegates in the upcoming elections. Obama actually only needs 52 of the remaining 293 superdelegates (17.74%).

    Ah yes (none / 0) (#149)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:30:15 PM EST
    The magic eightball again.

    More from Bowers (none / 0) (#151)
    by magster on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:32:38 PM EST
    "Obama already leads Clinton 2-1 in superdelegate endorsements today, and rumors are circling that a few more superdelegates will also endorse Obama today. Then again, we have heard that before about Obama, and the rumor comes from George Stephanopolous, so take it for what it is worth.

    Clinton leads 260-241 in superdelegates right now, outside of Florida and Michigan. Throw in the Pelosi Club, and that drops to 259-247. Throw in vacancies (Obama +5) and projected add-ons (Obama +33 Clinton +22), and Clinton's lead disappears entirely."  


    Assuming, of course (none / 0) (#155)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:41:13 PM EST
    that none of his current supers change their minds when he loses a few more critical democratic states.  People keep forgetting that the supers don't vote until convention and anything can happen between now and then.

    There is a good change this nomination is going to require calling in the super supers.


    Here's A Question (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:55:52 AM EST
    I know why Hill is endorsing now, Indiana.  But are the ones that aren't from upcoming primary states trickling out of camp Obama folks he's had and been waiting to use (say after losses Tuesday or after West Virginia) and has decided to roll them out now to try to counter the bad press?  That's my suspicion because I seriously doubt some undecided Congressman from Iowa has watched the past week and thought, "now's the time to get behind him."

    Unlike Bill Richardson (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:59:32 AM EST
    who always seems to jump too late.

    Understatement, (none / 0) (#97)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:38:36 AM EST
    thy name is BDB. LOL

    Endorsements, Schmendorsements (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:11:24 AM EST
    I like what Elizabeth Edwards said.  Endorsements mean NOTHING because the infighting continues.  Yes the super's endorsements count towards their nom, but other than that, so what?

    So what?

    If I were running for office I would rather have the endorsement of the American people...LOTS of them.  I guess if an elected leader can help GOTV, that would help, but it doesn't moreso than not.

    See Massachusetts for details.

    Another Super for Clinton ..... (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by Annie M on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:41:17 AM EST

    Chelsea Clinton just bagged a superdelegate for her mother. The youngest Clinton is campaigning today in San Juan, Puerto Rico. A few moments ago, at the Universidad del Sagrado Corazon, Luisette Cabanas, an unpledged superdelegate, announced her support for Clinton, giving the campaign the majority of automatic delegates on the island.

    Here's the link:


    Go Chelsea! (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:49:19 AM EST
    What a nice Mother's Day present for HRC. :-)

    And Obama Matches with Lois Capp of California (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:57:29 AM EST
    This is why I think Obama has had these SDs all along.  He's simply needing to use them now so it doesn't look like there's been a stampede in Clinton's direction the last few days.  Otherwise, I'm supposed to believe that mere minutes after Clinton bags one, Obama supposedly bags one.  And on the day after the big Wright kerfluffle.  Riiiiight.  

    I don't think Clinton had them all along or at least not all of them.  Not because I think she's above holding them back, but because when there was all that talk about her dropping out, rolling out a few of these would've helped.  

    Here's Ambinder on Capp.


    I agree. (none / 0) (#130)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:02:26 PM EST
    These are new endorsements for HRC.

    There's no way she wouldn't have disclosed them during the WWTSBQ period before PA.


    Re: Obama had these SD's all along .... (none / 0) (#144)
    by Annie M on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:18:49 PM EST
    It certainly is beginning to look that way.  I wonder how many more there are in that bag of tricks....

    Capp (none / 0) (#168)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:36:23 PM EST
    is Bill Burton's mother-in-law, this is one Obama has had in his pocket from the beginning. He was just waiting for the right time.

    I have absolutely no idea... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Universal on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:48:50 AM EST
    ...how anyone thinks that Wright is behind Obama based on yesterday's poll-test-mandated press conference. What a joke.

    Here are a series of videos discussing Wright & Obama in the wake of said press conference:


    MORE SDs announced (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by magster on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:03:26 PM EST
    per diarist at Kos

    Clinton received Luisette Cabanas from Puerto Rico, and Obama just announced Rep. Louis Capps from CA.

    Today's total, O-3, C-2

    Make that "Lois" Capps (none / 0) (#135)
    by magster on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:09:21 PM EST
    DON'T TRUST CNN OR MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by snucky on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:06:35 PM EST
    for years i swore at foxnews but this year they have been by far more fair to hillary. matter of fact hillary will be on the o'rielly factir tonite and thursday night.

    I hope Hill will help (none / 0) (#2)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:26:51 AM EST
    also there are reports from the first endorsement today, that Obama had more supers that he would roll out probably 1 maybe more.

    Then Hillary got George so the Obama camp immediately responded with Hill, wonder if they are done for today or if they roll out more.

    1 thing is for sure, whenever Hillary gets an endorsement the Obama camp will respond with one of their own, to keep anyone from being able to say there is any movement to her.

    now at 10 supes for Obama since PA and 5 for Hillary, her PA delegate gains are down to 5

    you mean because of these SDs? Because I have not sen any change in the PD count out of PA.

    yeah I am counting supers (none / 0) (#19)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:39:24 AM EST
    Hillary net gain in PA was 10 delegates, with 5 supers since then

    Obama has 10 supers since then, so since last week the delegate count has changed by 5, and Obama only gets closer to the magic number.

    the pop. vote won't be as convincing if she is still 150 delegates behind. well in my opinion it won't you will probably say it will, but I think the people who wrote these rules are more apt to follow the delegate count since that is how they set up the primaries in the rules they wrote.


    Remember when SDs (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:02:09 AM EST
    were not legit delegates?  Remember that?  Funny how math and truth changes with time.  

    Not only not legit, (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by NWHiker on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:07:47 AM EST
    Remember when they had to vote with the same way their districts did?

    no I don't remember that (none / 0) (#49)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:08:16 AM EST
    I do remember the Obama camp arguing that super delegates shouldn't over turn the pledged delegate leader if thats what you mean.

    thats an argument he will make to the supers to convince them to endorse, and Hillary will make whatever argument she believes will get them to endorse her....

    and as I said yesterday they supers will use whatever metric they want, but me I tend to think that when they were writing these rules they said the delegates determine the nominee, so to me I think its only logical a good number of them will follow the rules they wrote and use the pledged delegate as their metric to decide who to endorse,

    if you disagree, thats great you are entitled to your own opinion, and we shall see who the supers endorse

    ok with you?


    Nooo (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:11:18 AM EST
    There was a drive to not even count them in the running totals.

    Your memory is quite selective.


    Oh please MY memory is selective? (none / 0) (#61)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:15:58 AM EST
    hillary has been trying to confuse how the 2 delegates are viewed, exactly what is an automatic delegate?

    obviously Obama did not want them in the running tally because he wants to point out that he is actually leading in PLEDGED delegates and these automatic delegates (seriously someone define them for me) shouldn't over turn that.

    Hillary wanted them both added together so that there was no difference between pledged and those independent delegates, so they can vote how they want. and this was ALSO when Hillary and her camp were all about the delegates deciding the nomination, remember? plenty of Interviews they gave, in the end it came down to delegates and supers were delegates too so they should be counted and boom Hillary was in the lead, no pledged delegates equal the will of the people argument for Obama if they are all grouped together.


    Your memory is now bad (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:18:49 AM EST
    for example, you forgot that I am Big Tent Democrat not Hillary Clinton.

    you said my memory was (none / 0) (#83)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:27:56 AM EST
    bad because of an effort to keep supers out of the running total, I explained why what Hillary was doing made that necessary,

    now you can agree or disagree but do you honestly think I was confusing you with Hillary  really?

    so you didn't notice any effort on Hillary to down play pledged delegates and play up the supers? you weren't around for those "in the end its the delegates that decide the nomination?"

    right if you can't actually agree or disagree and just see the need to insult my intelligence then just don't waste your time replying me


    the house of clinton has (none / 0) (#170)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:54:01 PM EST
    no credibility on the distribution of super delegates.  she had ninety declared supers before a single caucus vote was cast in iowa.

    clearly, those supers were not abiding by any paradigm favorable to obama or clinton.  they marched to their own drum and nullified any debate on the "how" supers make up their mind.


    huh, what? (none / 0) (#174)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:48:15 PM EST
    They did exactly what they are empowered to do. They publicly stated who they backed. What are you saying exactly?

    Yeah, but the problem with pledged delegates (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:57:56 AM EST
    is that the pledge is only good until the first ballot at the convention. Then they can switch to the winner. And no matter what anyone says, the nomination is decided AT the convention. Nothing is set in stone until the convention votes. That is why it is so stupid for anyone to say that it will be decided in June, or whenever. The final say is at the convention, and only the votes cast at the convention count, no matter what anyone says beforehand.

    First, let me admit.. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by NWHiker on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:16:10 AM EST
    I don't like the whole SD thing at all. Still, it's in place and as it stands, the SDs get to, and should, vote what they believe to be best for the Dem party (ok, and themselves, ha!).

    What I find amusing is that a few months back, there were rumbles, from Obama supporters about how SDs should have to vote with their districts.

    Personally, I think the popular vote should be the only metric. As a US citizen who grew up abroad, I didn't realise the Electoral College was important as any but a ceremonial rubber stamp until 2000 and was horrified to see the popular vote didn't matter. But that's not the topic of this thread!


    Right, but if all the (none / 0) (#51)
    by independent voter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:10:08 AM EST
    Super Ds were removed from the equation, Obama would have MORE of a lead than he does now. Not sure what your point is, exactly.

    The point is (none / 0) (#59)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:14:53 AM EST
    making a big issue of each SD as an indication of victory.  Remember I count Florida and Michigan, so our base numbers may be different.  

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#72)
    by Iphie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:19:28 AM EST
    and if all delegates were removed from the equation, and we only counted the popular vote, and did it from all states, including MI and FL, then Hillary would have MORE of a lead than she does now. So, your point is ... exactly what?

    Look, I'm not the one trying to (none / 0) (#94)
    by independent voter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:37:06 AM EST
    change the metrics here. I was responding to someone proposing a change to the metrics, basically telling her be careful what you wish for.
    It gets very frustrating and tiring when every single thing has to be spun. In fact, I just realised how bored I am with this debate.

    Obama (none / 0) (#106)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:43:41 AM EST
    only got the narrative going about more delegates because he also had momentum.  


    Nobody is much interested in delegate count.  :)

    (As a Hillary supporter, naturally, this is a delightful change of talk.)


    Official Obama website (none / 0) (#17)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:38:10 AM EST
    now has a countdown of the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination.

    That's tacky (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by stefystef on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:42:15 AM EST
    and desperate from Obama's camp.

    Why? n/t (none / 0) (#52)
    by independent voter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:10:47 AM EST
    Showing Delegate countdown (none / 0) (#150)
    by stefystef on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:31:49 PM EST
    is tacky because there is no need for him to show this countdown.  

    I think it only causes Obama followers to up their harassment of SDs and it will only a desperate way of trying to convince people that Obama is electability against McCain to the undecided/undeclared Supers.


    the countdown is a prism. (none / 0) (#171)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:58:52 PM EST
    who will be the one, or the group to take him over the top has to be on the minds of some supers.

    if you had the chance to decide the nomination, i imagine you would consider the pr opportunity that comes with that distinction, especially given the historical import of the outcome.


    Chuck Todd already noted (none / 0) (#175)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:27:32 PM EST
    that Obama voters had been going after superdeez and were ratcheting it up.  He said to Andrea Mitchell that she, he and others at MSNBC had been the targets of their attention so they knew what the superdeez were going through.

    Clinton supporters? eh, not so much.


    And it still doesn't matter (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:22:01 AM EST
    those supers choices are not locked in and they are free to change their minds right up until and inculding the convention.

    Obama could lose them all. Watch what happens if he loses Indiana and it is within single digits in NC.


    Whew*....... (none / 0) (#108)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:44:48 AM EST
    It's tough to take back an endorsement once it's given.

    But Wright did offer some SD's a "way out."

    You could be right.


    SDs have been doing it (none / 0) (#157)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:48:41 PM EST
    to Clinton.  Might be tough, but they sure don't have to advertise it.  Until the supers actually vote at convention, we'll not know the true numbers on either side.  Actually, even pledged delegates are allowed to vote who they want to come convention.

    Looks like Salt was correct (none / 0) (#4)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:27:47 AM EST
    On the other thread in quoting McCaskill.. Salt grabbed this from Politico..

    The majority of superdelegates I've talked to are committed, but it is a matter of timing," said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). "They're just preferring to make their decision public after the primaries are over. ... They would like someone else to act for them before they talk about it in the cold light of day."

    Obama currently holds an 18-13 lead among committed superdelegates in the Senate, while Clinton holds a 77-74 lead in the House. Asked which way the committed-but-unannounced superdelegates are leaning, McCaskill -- who has endorsed Obama -- said: "James Brown would say, `I Feel Good.'"

    I would suggest (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:29:26 AM EST
    not believing a word McCaskill says.

    This is the latest (none / 0) (#68)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:18:48 AM EST
    being floated by the Obama campaign.  I caught a little clip of an Obama surrogate (didn't recognize the woman) on MSNBC this morning.  Essentially, they are suggesting Obama has more than enough superdelegates who have committed but not publicly declared that the upcoming votes won't make any difference.  Sounds like another attempt to depress the vote by creating the perception that it is a futile exercise in the long run.  

    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:22:49 AM EST
    and Gore and Edwards are going to make a joint endorsment.
    and Elvis has left the building.

    NO!!! (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by MMW on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:45:28 PM EST
    Elvis is coming back into the building to declare with Gore and Edwards for Obama.

    So McCaskill is the (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:30:55 AM EST
    ultimate party insider?? I like her less and less every day.  What a jerk.

    LOL (none / 0) (#9)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:32:06 AM EST
    she is a jerk because she talks to other super delegates and knows they have decided who they back its just a matter of timing endorsements? really

    that makes her a jerk huh?


    It makes her an insider (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:33:52 AM EST
    Which was the point I think.

    So much for running against the Establishment.

    Which was a joke always.


    still doesn't make (none / 0) (#23)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:41:30 AM EST
    her a jerk, which was what I was focusing on.

    it seems Obama supporters always have a way of being Judas, or blind or stupid. when what the only reason is she has access to talk to other supers?


    Um (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:43:35 AM EST
    Seems like it makes Hillary and her supporters "jerks" for a lot of you.

    what alot of you (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:46:31 AM EST
    if you don't want people putting words in your mouth don't do it to me

    have I ever called her a jerk? shall I now go to taylormarsh.com or Hillaryis44.org and get one of those HRC supporters comments and attribute them to you?

    supporters are bad on both sides how about stop trying to paint the majority of us as bad because of a vocal minority.


    I am basing my opionion (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:15:20 AM EST
    of her on the opinions of my democratic neighbors across the border in MO tell me.
    they aint happy.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:28:27 AM EST
    As one of your neighbors, I agree with you.  McCaskill, oddly enough started with the same problem that many hold against Hillary, high unfavorables.  She has not helped herself with her voting record or her support of Obama.  It will be interesting to see who the Republicans run against her in 2012.  Unless she can turn things around, she will be very vulnerable for re-election.  

    IMO, if Obama Loses To McCain, McCaskill Will Be A (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:16:31 PM EST
    1 term Senator. Claire was not particurly popular in MO before her endorsement of Obama. While this endorsement will play well to the AA communities here, it is a negative with conservative Dems in counties throughout the state after Rev. Wright. Dems can't win here without support both the AA community and conservative Dems.

    You Might Want To Take A Look At Her Votes (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:37:00 AM EST
    on Iraq an FISA. And yes, to put it kindly, she is a jerk.

    Nah. What makes her a jerk (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:41:33 AM EST
    is that she is trying to wink-wink saying that she already knows the supers will mostly go for Obama...leading to the conclusion that you know...the states that are left to vote don't matter. That no matter what they determine, they're gonna give Obama the nomination. We're just waiting.  She "feels good."  Hence, she's a jerk.  Besides all the many many other reasons.

    So now we are resorting (none / 0) (#65)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:17:36 AM EST
    to name calling?  Hmmmm.

    I don't call Obama or Clinton names.  I can get mad as hell but since I am not in high school, I can choose adjectives and nouns that can make my case.

    I'll come back to Talk Left when you guys can rise above this stuff.


    You must have (none / 0) (#79)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:24:08 AM EST
    been horrified when BTD called John A. an idiot yesterday!

    well, I, for one, (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by ccpup on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:08:28 PM EST
    immediately crumpled onto my fainting couch with just barely enough time -- or strength -- to grab my smelling salts AND my fan.  And I was so shattered -- shattered, I tell you -- by the experience I barely had the ability to focus on my afternoon stories.  Now I'll NEVER know who's pregnant with whose child or what devious things my Story People are plotting and planning!

    It really IS a brutal Primary Season when the word "idiot" starts to get thrown around.

    (gasp! faint! ... snark)


    She's a jerk because she said that Black (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:54:23 AM EST
    leaders present themselves as victims, imo.

    Ouch! (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:58:55 AM EST
    A not-so-progressive voting record and racial insensitivity. I wouldn't be too impressed with her either.

    I am a bit (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:17:08 PM EST
    lost in this part of the thread.  But I do agree that victim-talk is a huge part of what I've seen in this poltiical season.

    If that makes me a racist to some, so be it.

    Actually, my attitude was developed in being a real victim of male/female crime.  And my current attitude is the result of making a lot of changes.

    So I spot victim talk quickly.

    Obama's campaign has been rooted in that.  It was the "silent" appeal.

    It is not racism that makes many people able to see that.


    The same James Brown who said (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:48:50 AM EST
    "Please, please, please" a lot....   but never ever said "Thank you"?   as a blues lover once joked to me.

    This is rumor-mongering..... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:18:01 AM EST
    and it's worthless at this stage.

    It's clear that the super delegates will be watching to see what happens now.

    Indiana and NC are now in play big-time.

    How bad will the Wright flap hurt Obama?  Will it affect even his AA support?  Remember, the NAACP gave Wright a standing ovation just hours before Obama came out and completely repudiated him.  There's a head-scratcher for pollsters.  Will it cause some people to skip the primary?  Will it turn some against him?

    How big will the spreads be?

    How much will her momentum firm up?  Kentucky isn't far behind, and that's a whopper loss for Obama.


    Might depend on who they believe (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:01:25 PM EST
    Rev Wright shows much more conviction in his claim that Obama says what he has to as a politician.  The Canadians say the same thing in regard to NAFTA.

    Obama wasn't at all convincing to me yesterday.  Why didn't Michelle stand on stage with him? Wright was her friend, mentor and pastor, too.


    I applaud any and all Supers coming forward. (none / 0) (#12)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:33:23 AM EST
    For whichever candidate they favor, for whatever reason they choose. Don't like Obama's shoes? Fantastic, commit to Hillary. Worried that her fundraising machine won't give you as much money as his will? Wonderful, step right over to the Obama table. Just make up your mind already.

    If demographics really is destiny, and I've seen no reason to believe that it isn't, then the only thing that heal the party is time. We'll need as much of it as possible, no matter who we pick.

    If Obama wins NC by 10+ and is within 5 in IN... (none / 0) (#56)
    by mike in dc on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:12:05 AM EST
    ...I'd expect a flood of endorsements for him between the 7th and the 20th, which would help offset the likely WV blowout.

    He is less than 300 away from 2024, and if FL/MI are included in some way, less than 400 away from 2208.
    Clinton is about 450 away from 2024, and under the most favorable split for FL/MI, she'd still be more than 400 away from 2208.  
    A good week for Obama next week would put him less than 200/300 away.  If he got only 40% of all remaining pledged delegates after 5/6, he'd still move to within 100/200 delegates.  Assuming he picks up 5 endorsements a week for the next 5 weeks(a very modest assumption), Obama would need only 75/175 of the remaining SDs to clinch the nomination.  
    Assuming Clinton gets 60% of the remaining pledged delegates, and picks up 10 endorsements a week to Obama's 5, she would still need about 150 additional superdelegate endorsements to clinch.  That would be 150 out of less than 225 remaining.

    Not impossible for her, but a split with Obama next week, and a split of the remaining contests would probably put it out of reach for Clinton, even if she got everything she wanted from the resolution of FL/MI.

    I wouldn't (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:16:43 AM EST
    Winning NC by 10 while losing 60%+ of the  white vote and losing Indiana by 5 makes the electability issue front and center for Obama.

    The fact that he's gotten so many SDs (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:23:03 AM EST
    even after the disasters of OH, TX, and PA frankly confounds me.

    I Think He Already Had Them (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:36:55 AM EST
    He was waiting to roll them out when he needed them.  Now, he needs them.  

    The most important thing he needs is a good May 6th.  For all the talk about do or die for Hillary, I'm beginning to believe that Obama's nomination is starting to depend a lot on May 6th.  If the worst comes to pass (which appears to be an Indiana loss by 10 and a win in NC by 5), he's got very big problems.  I don't care what his little delegate countdown meter says.

    Of course, at every stage when something decisive could happen, it hasn't.  So I expect Obama to lose Indiana by 4-5% and win NC by 10-15%.   Which keeps us in the muddle.  Because apparently we love the muddle.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#105)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:43:08 AM EST
    Not me (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:25:26 AM EST
    Past money raising abilities.  Being able to campaign and win is still about money and ability to attract it and get your hands on it.

    Agree (none / 0) (#110)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:47:19 AM EST
    His postitives are still very impressive.

    But Wright has now grown roots and is firmly potted.

    It's an issue.

    That changes the political landscape.


    Given the demographics of those states... (none / 0) (#85)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:29:06 AM EST
    It's possible that Supers don't really consider his performance a disaster. Of course, if that's true, they should consider Hillary being blown out in NC to be a disaster against her, either.

    And there's always the money issue. Obama has it, and he shares. Hillary hasn't, at least not yet.


    Hillary has raise a lot of money (none / 0) (#87)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:30:30 AM EST
    for a lot of people over the years. So, you know, I'm skeptical of that explanation.

    I think his gorgeous money making machine (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:34:19 AM EST
    has been very attractive this cycle.  It has probably taken a hit though now so if it has been a factor in having SDs lean his way it probably isn't going to be much longer.  And someone leaning your way because you can raise campaign money probably isn't going to be too loyal if that ability goes away.

    Sure. (none / 0) (#89)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:33:20 AM EST
    But she's never raised the kinds of amounts in the kind of time that Obama has.

    Of course, neither has anyone else.


    Politicians (none / 0) (#132)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:06:29 PM EST
    are really pretty superficial people, remember.


    That's the truth.

    Their loyalties go about as far as the next election.


    Shares? (none / 0) (#165)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    He has a PAC that he can't use for himself. That money has to be given to others, and he got it filled as high as he could because he knew he couldn't win the SD's on his merits...he was going to have to buy them.

    And actually, (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:29:37 AM EST
    The scenario you pose here is exactly what I expect. He might even lose IN by MORE than 5.

    What if Hillary doesn't win 20% of the black vote? (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimotto on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:44:25 AM EST
    You are effectively saying if Obama doesn't win NC by 15 pts he has an electibility issue.  (If he only wins 40% of whites and has a poor showing with 85% of blacks, he wins by 16pts).

    When was the last time Hillary cleared 20% of the black vote?  Obama performs much better with whites than Hillary does with blacks, does this in your mind raise an electability issues for Hillary?  


    AAs (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:52:10 AM EST
    are about 12% of the population.
    some of these discussions lose site of that fact.

    and BTW (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:53:05 AM EST
    contrary to what you hear on MSNBC and CNN Hillary has many AA supporters.
    they will not ALL stay home.

    Ignoring reality (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by nell on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:54:00 AM EST
    You are ignoring the reality that there are identity politics at play.

    Just as it would be foolish to think Obama could get the majority of white women to vote for him with Clinton in the race, it is foolish to think Clinton could the majority of African Americans to vote for her with Obama in the race. Both take pride in the candidates they identify with, and there is nothing wrong with that.

    The African American community is supporting Obama full force because that is in their best interests. However, there is NO evidence to support your assertion that they will not support Clinton come November if she is the nominee. In fact, all of the available polling shows that they will support Clinton if she is the nominee. And I have no doubt that Clinton will make every effort possible to reach out to the AA community, as she has already done. And if you want to talk about bad feelings in the AA community towards Clinton, please, let's. Becuase I still have not forgotten that it was Obama's campaign that pushed the race issue and released that incredibly divisive and false race baiting memo in SC.

    And if you truly believe that the African American community will not support Clinton if she is the nominee, then I suppose you are similarly concerned that white women will not support Obama if he is the nominee. Clinton has been treated HORRIBLY by the media and by her own party, Obama included, and there are many women who feel she hasn't gotten a fair shake. So if you expect these women to support Obama, then you should also expect the African American community to support Clinton.


    I totally agree with you. (none / 0) (#140)
    by jimotto on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:15:09 PM EST
    Obama only winning 35-40 percent of the white vote in a primary does not present any more of an electability problem than Clinton only winning 10-15% of the black vote.

    Which was the point of my question.


    Um (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:53:40 PM EST
    yes it does. Obama's demographic problems are with a MAJORITY of americans whereas Hillary's demographic problems are with a MINORITY of Americans. I don't think that you can reasonably say they are the same.

    Honestly (none / 0) (#153)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:36:01 PM EST
    A through discussion of this topic is generally verboten on this blog, and from what I've seen for very good reason. But I think you are missing something or purposefully leaving it out.

    There is a difference (none / 0) (#169)
    by nell on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:44:28 PM EST
    You continue to ignore the demographic weaknesses Obama has shown and why they spell trouble for the general election. My point above was just to say that identity politics with African Americans and white women cloud the issue of who really appeals to who, and I am glad we agree on that point.

    However, it is also important to take into account historical voting patterns of the folks each candidate is having trouble with, as well as where they are geographically. When you do that, I think you begin to see that Obama has a real problem. Clinton's primary coalition is women, Latinos, seniors, and lunch bucket democrats, and obviously these categories overlap. Obama's coalition is African Americans, young people, and latte liberals. Though Obama previously had an edge among Independents, the most recent polling shows Clinton gaining big with Independents.

    The people most likely to swing to McCain  in a general election are Latinos, who have more respect for McCain than pretty much any other republican because he bucked the party on immigration, lunch bucket democrats, who really do not seem to identify with Obama (and no, I don't think it is racism, racists are also likely to be sexist, in which case they wouldn't be voting Clinton), and seniors, who are more likely to value experience. While I do not deny that Clinton may experience decreased turnout among Obama's key groups, none of these groups have historically been willing to swing Republican. Also, the key swing states are going to be places like PA, OH, and FL where his demographic struggles make it almost certain he will lose...maybe he can VA, CO, NV, but I REALLY do not think so...

    I am not saying Obama CANNOT win, though if he were the nominee and I were to make a bet I would bet he loses, but I am saying that I believe his road will be much harder than Hillary's.


    Of course it does. (none / 0) (#111)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:47:22 AM EST
    Problem is that AA vote is 10% of the population.  If you choose to ignore that he cannot seem to garner more than 35% of the white vote, you've got a serious problem there.

    And, what's the usual % turnout (none / 0) (#167)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:09:22 PM EST
    Come the GE, what will voter turn-out look like?  I haven't heard the black voters have "turned away" from Clinton; they've simply "turned to" Obama.  If there's a problem getting them back, ask Axelrod to undo the damage he did by allowing his campaign to paint the Clinton's as racists.

    Frankly, history has shown (none / 0) (#116)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:51:53 AM EST
    that AAs are easier to get back into the coalition. Whether this year would be different is an interesting and different question.

    As is the question... (none / 0) (#120)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:53:57 AM EST
    Of whether historic loyalty should be rewarded, or punished.

    HIstoric loyalty? (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:14:28 PM EST
    Older voters are a larger block of loyal voters.  Larger defections, bigger problem.  Women are a large block of loyal voters.  Larger defections, huge problem.  Working class?  Many elections are dependent on them.

    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:23:33 PM EST
    that the Fall election will be quite different.  AS the Democrats "redefine" themselves, then so will voters.

    That is the natural consequence of redefining.  

    Kennedy kicked off this new game.

    Blame him.

    Older voters will simply go where the ground looks the least threatening.  That will be McCain.  Obama is threatening SS.  His tax program sucks.  He looks like someone who will not stand up for them.  They are gone.

    Women?  He'll lose that valuable cross-over Republican woman vote for sure.  They'll go back to McCain.  He'll lose the "angry women" vote.  They'll vote against him out of principle.

    Latinos?......I predict will split.  He'll not persuade older, and I don't mean 60 and above......but more mature Latinos.  They have his number.  They don't want to call it.  He's promised zip.

    Jewish Dems?.......he's toast.  A vote for him is nearly discounting your grandmother at this point.  yikes!

    Lower middle class?  They may move to him.  Not sure.

    Upper middle class?  I think they'll be the "surprise" group in the Fall.  They'll vote Republican as their accts explain how Obama's tax plans will affect them.  They'll content themselves with having voted for him the primaries.  :)

    He's not going to win in the Fall is my prediction.


    Well, what do we mean by "rewarded"? (none / 0) (#125)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:58:34 AM EST
    Substantively white Democrats are ALWAYS better on policy that matters to most AAs than Republicans. So in a sense, AAs are always choosing correctly.

    The question is whether some think they deserve a bonus for being so loyal. What if that could involve destroying the party (by, say, nominating an unelectable black candidate)?

    This whole thing has shades of "max black" redistricting in the 90s.


    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:10:01 PM EST
    It's a complicated issue. Do you reward your most loyal constituents by giving them the candidates they want, even though those candidates face additional hurdles in the GE, or do you take their votes for granted, given how awful your opponent is for their interests?

    The Republicans face the same dilemma in the Religious Right. They always seem to be better about coming together in the end, though.


    Math? (none / 0) (#137)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:11:40 PM EST
    My math has 85% of 30% AA plus 40% of  70% white is about 7-8 pts?

    Now I'm expecting turnout to bump for Obama to possibly 33% and his white vote to be about 38%, that gives him 10 pts.  If his white support (he can't win the GE without it) drops below 38% his pts spread is between 10 pts.  If he is below 10 in NC and loses IN by even 1 pt, he's got electability issues.

    The percent of total voters that is white is much larger than the percent of voters that are AA.  Clinton can handle a much larger hit in defections that Obama can based on this primary's turnout and demographic.


    Black vote will be 37-40% of total. (none / 0) (#141)
    by jimotto on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:16:30 PM EST
    Of the total GE??? (none / 0) (#159)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:51:20 PM EST
    I don't think so.

    In the 2004 presidential race, whites made up 77% of the electorate, blacks made up 11&, Hispanics made up 8%, Asians made up 2% and "Other" made up 2%.


    In the 2000 presidential race, whites were 81%, blacks were 10%, hispanics were 7%, and Asians were 2%.


    In 1996, the numbers were W - 83%, B - 10%, H - 5%, A - 1%

    and so on....

    Now, you could argue that you will see a larger portion of AA's out if Obama is the nominee, but my guess is that it will be 12-13% of the total electorate.


    I think NC only (none / 0) (#162)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:53:54 PM EST
    I thought the discussion was with regards to NC only, not national?

    Oh - my bad. (none / 0) (#164)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:02:35 PM EST
    That seems unusual (none / 0) (#160)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:52:25 PM EST
    There are a total of about 5.79 million registered voters.  AAs are 1.29 million.  That means every AA will turnout and total turnout of 50%?  If turnout overall is 60% (I hope) and 90% of registered AAs turnout, that would be about 31% of the total vote.  I think a couple of polls have indicated 30-32% which kind of went with my estimated turnout of 33%.  40% seems an unusual turnout model.

    Blacks made up 50% of Kerry's votes in 2004 (none / 0) (#176)
    by jimotto on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:45:11 PM EST
    They make up 38% of registered Democrats.  They comprised more than 50% of the total vote for Kerry and Bowles (senator) in their losses, and 43% of the total vote for Easley (gov) in 2004.  So they deliver a disproportionate percentage of votes for Dems in NC relative to the makeup of the party as a whole.  So 37-40% of the primary vote, when this constituency is particularly motivated by the first viable black candidate, is much more likely than the low 30's.

    Oy not this again (none / 0) (#63)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:16:14 AM EST
    All of this is hokum and smoke screen. I think the nomination is Obamas to lose, but he still can lose it. It has NOTHING to do with all these mathematical shenanigans. I think its plain and simple: he needs to win IN. If he is loses within 5 points it won't do it. If he wins NC with less than 10 points its not good. He has to break through the demographic barrier that most people know will cost him the election.

    I'll say it here and now: I don't care if by the end he needs 5 SDs to go over the top, if he fails the remaining will all go to Hillary and/or you'll see a back-room deal with him.

    I really am trying to be realistic and non biased in this analysis, but as always I know I can be VERY wrong.


    And None of The SDs Are Bound Until August (none / 0) (#96)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:38:33 AM EST
    So any count of them now, while it might be indicative, is meaningless since any of them, including Clinton supporters, can change their mind before the convention.

    Obama in NC (none / 0) (#98)
    by bobbski on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:38:55 AM EST
    What effect, if any, will his dissing of Wright have on the AA vote in NC?

    This will be a wait and see moment. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Radix on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:51:01 AM EST
    If I was forced to guess, Obama's latest move will likely cost him a few votes, not enough to change the percentages in any meaningful way though. It really depends on Wright and his response, if any, will be. So we wait.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    Guessing not much (none / 0) (#109)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:47:06 AM EST
    But even a 5% drop in AA turnout would be probably bad.

    Maybe it will.. (none / 0) (#138)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:11:42 PM EST
    The one thing my black friends, all church-going, are upset about is that he dumped on his pastor for political convenience. They don't like that one bit. Shows a lack of loyalty they find disturbing. Distancing himself from Wright's comments is one thing, loudly and publicly claiming he wasn't his spiritual advisor, friend, etc. is something else entirely, especially since he has claimed the opposite for years. I don't know about NC, but down here in FL, Obama's dumping of his pastor is not going down well at all in the black community.

    Surprised (none / 0) (#100)
    by nell on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:39:46 AM EST
    I am surprised by this endorsement, frankly.

    Hill is taking a big risk coming out ONE day after the Wright fiasco, I would have expected him to wait until the dust settles a bit. He is not from a liberal area or a liberal state. My only thought is that he got a big chunk from the HOPE Pac or that he has been promised fundraising assistance in the future...that is cynical, but it makes NO sense for him to put his neck on the line given the demographics of his district...

    I don't think this matters in terms of how people vote, but it helps turn the media narrative and I think it cements the idea that most people in the DNC continue to think Obama will be the nominee. I agree with this sentiment, however, I think he will be a disaster as far as the general election and I do not believe he will make a good president.

    He got $12,250 from Obama's PAC. (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:36:04 PM EST
    Listings for 2007 and 2008 for his PAC are here.

    Hill is exactly the kind of rep (none / 0) (#146)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:22:37 PM EST
    who should be scared to death of the downticket implications of an Obama candidacy.

    What's the situation with a GOP challenger for Hill?  Given that the seat turned Dem last year, its the kind of seat that the GOP is likely to target in a big way this year for a pickup.


    Looking for clarification (none / 0) (#119)
    by 1040su on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:53:48 AM EST
    Is the conventional wisdom that whomever your state went for is who the SDs from that state should endorse?  I saw Daschle on MTP a few weeks ago & TR asked him if his state went for HRC, would he change his endorsement.  He said absolutely.

    Not at all. (none / 0) (#129)
    by Radix on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:02:06 PM EST
    This is just Daschle playing on both sides of the fence.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Just called about voting here in Montana (none / 0) (#158)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:49:51 PM EST
    and we can start on May 5th early voting, so my family plans to vote that way this year....In Montana, noone is registered either Republican or Democrat, so will be hard to tell who is who IMO...We just register to vote and can vote on the ballot we choose...