home

The Problem With Joe Andrew's Argument Is . . .

Democrats are moving in the opposite direction:

[From Rasmussen] In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, the Wright impact is especially evident. Clinton now has a statistically insignificant two-point edge over Obama, 46% to 44%. However, that represents a ten-point swing since Wright’s press conference. Before Pastor Wright appeared at the National Press Club, Obama led Clinton by eight points (see recent Democratic Nomination results).

Obama needs to beat Clinton, not have the Superdelegates drive Clinton from the race. It will make him look weak. Andrew's instincts are terrible here. Oh BTW, Ras has Clinton up 5 in Indiana.

By Big Tent Democrat

Comments closed.

< An Endorsement Not On The Merits | PA, FL and OH >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    National polls? Bleh (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:54:54 AM EST
    I think we're going to get a split decision on Tuesday, and all eyes must be on NC: if Obama underperforms (say, with Hillary getting 65% of the white vote or more), it will be a bad day for him.

    After that, who knows.

    I'm beginning to strongly (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:57:59 AM EST
    believe he is going to underperform in N.C.

    [ Parent ]
    The Question is (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by daryl herbert on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:28:30 AM EST
    NOT whether he will "underperform" (that is a given)

    The question is whether Hillary can win NC.  Right now, I'd give her a 20% chance.  If she can pull that off, his campaign will have been dealt a massive blow, and the superdelegates will follow.

    I realize that Sen. Clinton wants to manage expectations (if people think she might win NC, and then she loses it by 4 points, that becomes a "loss" in the expectations game, and the media will report that Clinton tried to win NC but just couldn't do it, so she should drop out).  I also don't think she's going to win NC, but I do think it will be very close.

    The threat that she could win it must have the Obama camp terrified.

    [ Parent ]

    I doubt it (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:00:28 AM EST
    However, if there's lots of white indys who cross over, he's got a problem.

    [ Parent ]
    There are 1.3 million indys in NC (none / 0) (#15)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:02:47 AM EST
    Mostly white and mostly "undecided" as of last week.

    There's hope for Hill.

    [ Parent ]

    One more thing (none / 0) (#24)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:05:17 AM EST
    Just a reminder, something I remembered and posted in the first Joe Andrew thread...might be useful as we cogitate on our arguments today...

    Folks need to remember that during Andrew's term as Chair, there were TWO DNC chairs - Andrew served as "general" chair, but the "national" chair during his tenure was none other than high-profile Hillary supporter Ed Rendell.  

    My guess is that this endorsement has a whole lot to do with Andrew's personal relationship with Rendell.

    Andrew's tenure with Rendell was during the 2000 election, hardly the most placid period of our Party's history...just a reminder that his relationship with the Clintons may well not be as it's currently being described by MSM.

    [ Parent ]

    Interesting (none / 0) (#30)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:07:57 AM EST
    Thanks for the context.  

    [ Parent ]
    were Andrew and Rendell (none / 0) (#42)
    by ccpup on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:13:35 AM EST
    not on friendly terms?  Or was it more of a "I want to show him up"-type of thing.

    [ Parent ]
    No telling (none / 0) (#70)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:22:57 AM EST
    But I do remember (from having lived in D.C. and been involved in politics in that era) that Andrew had duties more along the lines of what you might think of as an E.D., while Rendell had a lot more of the power you might associate with a traditional DNC chair.

    I haven't seen even one interview in which Andrew has so much as mentioned Rendell today, just him pretending he, Andrew, had as much power as McAuliffe commanded when he was chair.  It's simply not true.

    (And I know I'm talking about this a couple different places in this thread, sorry for the overlap...)

    [ Parent ]

    I know I'm showing (none / 0) (#47)
    by DJ on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:16:33 AM EST
    my ignorance but ...can indys vote in that primary?

    [ Parent ]
    Yep (none / 0) (#96)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:27:53 AM EST
    Independents are 26% of the vote in NC, apparently.

    And I'm reading info (here) showing that folks are supposed to be able to register same-day for the primary?  

    (I haven't been following the kerfuffle over the Womens Voices Women Vote Center at the DNC, can somebody clear that up for me?)

    [ Parent ]

    same day registration in NC (none / 0) (#137)
    by angie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:42:43 AM EST
    is only until May 3rd & only at certain "one-stop" early voting locations -- voters can register or switch parties (either I, D or R) on the same day they vote early. (Is can vote in either the D or R primary, but have to choose which one). Early voting ends May 3rd.
     

    [ Parent ]
    Are there any hot races on the R side? (none / 0) (#190)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:27:17 AM EST
    Are there any compelling reasons for the Indies to pick a Republican ballot over a Democratic one?

    [ Parent ]
    4 way race for Governor (none / 0) (#204)
    by jimotto on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:57:05 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The issue (none / 0) (#174)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:06:32 AM EST
    is that is a group that has promoted registration for years.

    Yet because it's a woman's group, somehow it's nefarious?

    I didn't get it at all, other than it was another example of the double standard.  He's been lauded for doing the same.  She gets criticized?

    I'm so done with this double standard.

    [ Parent ]

    and if that's the case (none / 0) (#39)
    by ccpup on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:12:06 AM EST
    and he embarrassingly under-performs in a State which, demographically, should be a slam dunk and the SDs STILL support him after that and make him the Nominee, then the Dems deserve to lose in the GE.  

    I know I certainly won't vote for Barack.

    And this is coming from a hard-core Dem who one year ago could never have imagined NOT voting in a General Election!  

    But the ham-handed, weak-kneed Dem Leaders and absolutely asinine, uninformed SDs are making it a frighteningly easy choice to make.

    [ Parent ]

    I knew (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:08:45 AM EST
    most of what I still know about Hillary from this season.

    I've learned a lot about Obama, most of which confirmed my original impression.  Some of what I've learned has softened me a bit.

    But the real eye-opener has been the Democratic Party.

    That's been a huge blink for me.  Man, was I naive!

    I'm no longer a Democrat.  I'm Independent now.

    And that's due directly as a result of the party leaders and their choices.

    They lost my respect.

    [ Parent ]

    you know, I vacillate on this (none / 0) (#157)
    by angie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:54:21 AM EST
    As a die hard Dem myself, I know we should rally behind the eventual nominee (and I know there is no way I will vote for McCain in the fall) -- but what makes me waver is not so much Obama or his rapid (and rude) supporters (although they don't help), but the way the DNC has acted throughout this process -- death penalty to FL & MI (when the oft touted ROOLZ only called for a 50% loss), this pressure from Dean, et al for Hillary to quit & for the SDs to "come out now."  It makes me actually disgusted with the Democratic party -- if things had played out "fairly" (i.e., MI & FL counting at least 50% as in the ROOLZ), no pressure to end the race early, etc. and Obama won, I would have been disappointed, but I would have accepted it.  The way it seems to be playing out, however, I am on the verge of leaving the party -- this party no longer represents me. The DNC still has time to correct itself (FL, MI, etc.), and it better if it cares about me, my money & my vote.

    [ Parent ]
    from your mouth to the DNCs ears n/t (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by DJ on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:59:50 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No vacillation on my part. (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by alexei on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:23:38 AM EST
    I'm voting for Hillary either way.  The disenfranchisement of voters is my litmus test.  And the Dem Party has failed so far.

    [ Parent ]
    Underperforms won't matter. (none / 0) (#49)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:16:54 AM EST
    What would matter is if Clinton wins North Carolina.  I think that's highly unlikely, but we now have two polls showing her within single digits (I discount the IA poll completely) and closing.

    If Obama wins the message is "Damaged Obama holds on in North Carolina".  If Clinton wins the message is "Voters turn away from Obama".

    [ Parent ]

    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by sweetthings on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:20:56 AM EST
    It's not enough for Clinton to cut into Obama's lead. Obama dramatically slashed her lead in Texas, but the news story the next day was "Clinton Comeback!" The same logic will hold for NC. Clinton must win in order to change the narrative.

    And boy, is that a tall order.

    [ Parent ]

    Even if she won NC (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:23:27 AM EST
    the media would report as a slight win and include the decimal points.  :)

    [ Parent ]
    No, if she wins N.C. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:24:41 AM EST
    watch out.  You will hear words like "shocking", "damaged", and "meltdown".

    That said, it's a very, very, very tall order to pull it off.

    [ Parent ]

    She doesn't have to win. The message (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:31:14 AM EST
    is the same if she does better than expected.

    [ Parent ]
    If we want to win in Novemeber (none / 0) (#205)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:05:39 PM EST
    then Clinton winning NC might be the best case scenario toward achieving that.  See, what Hillary needs is for Obama's meltdown to be so complete and undisputed that the other half of the party accepts her victory and doesn't necessarily say she "stole" anything.  Winning Indiana and North Carolina may accomplish that.

    [ Parent ]
    actually, (3.66 / 3) (#78)
    by ccpup on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:23:58 AM EST
    in light of the now almost empty Kool-aid barrel, the headline if Obama wins NC would read more like "Barack Comes Roaring Back!" and, if Hillary wins NC, it would be "Clinton Ekes out Weak Win"

    And then I think the reporter would go back to the Barack Buffet Table to refill his tippy-cup in order to drown out those few, lingering memories of the Edward R. Murrow-like reporter he intended to be before he became a dispensable, easily ignored hack.

    [ Parent ]

    whoo hoo! (none / 0) (#133)
    by ccpup on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:40:27 AM EST
    my first 1 Rating!  

    Obviously, someone's unhappy with what I wrote ... which indicates I hit the nail on the head somewhere.

    :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry hon (3.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:43:28 AM EST
    It was me, and an accident (when I hit the down-scroll bar on my browser, it changes the "rating "radio buttons and doesn't actually scroll down...I try to remember not to do it but I forget, since this is the only site where it happens...d'oh!)

    [ Parent ]
    oh well (none / 0) (#149)
    by ccpup on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:49:02 AM EST
    there goes my brief but thoroughly enjoyed "I'm Such a Firebrand and Rascally Troublemaker" fantasy.

    Gee, thanks, Eleanor A for popping my balloon!

    :-)

    [ Parent ]

    [briefly (none / 0) (#161)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:57:03 AM EST
    [briefly considered "1" rating you again just as a joke, but was afraid I might somehow actually inhibit your ability to write posts, most of which I enjoy greatly....carry on! :) ]

    [ Parent ]
    or ... (none / 0) (#192)
    by ccpup on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:29:03 AM EST
    you could have rated me a 1 and then threatened to expose me for the Computer Expert Which All Governments Fear that I truly am. (That'd be Ridiculous Fantasy 5-A, for your information)

    Again, just what is it with you and this apparently overwhelming need to pop my balloon?

    Sheesh.

    :-)

    [ Parent ]

    um ... (none / 0) (#194)
    by ccpup on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:31:21 AM EST
    that should be Computer Expert WHO All Governments Fear not WHICH all governments fear.

    But, again, they fear my abilities, not my grammatical skills.

    (which is a subsection to Fantasy 5-A, by the way)

    [ Parent ]

    I was wondering (none / 0) (#200)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:42:02 AM EST
    why you were going around rating 1s.  I got one from you and was wondering why.  That gave me a chuckle.  Here's a little back....

    [ Parent ]
    I gave you a 5 (none / 0) (#166)
    by angie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:00:51 AM EST
    to try and make up for Eleanora's mishap.

    [ Parent ]
    As far as this campaign goes (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:56:21 AM EST
    Obama is in serious trouble right now.  It is time to start talking unity ticket, not strong arming.

    Everything suggests (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by frankly0 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:00:31 AM EST
    that the tide is turning in this primary season. The national polls, the state polls, the general tenor both of the media's commentary and of top Democratic officials such as Dean and Brazile (who presumably are only reflecting the point of view forced on them by many superdelegates). Obviously the reemergence of Wright is only reinforcing this new inclination away from Obama.

    If Hillary wins IN, and loses NC by a relatively small margin, I think the floodgates are going to open in the "unelectable" sentiment against Obama, and there's probably going to be very little he can do to stop it.

    Because it's true - he IS unelectable (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:04:11 AM EST
    Most of us here have known it for months, but I think it's just dawning on some of his Kool-Aid drinkers how little a chance in the GE he actually has.  Thus the panic we're seeing here and on other boards...

    [ Parent ]
    I see panic from a losing (4.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:23:40 AM EST
    candidates supporters, and I am really embarassed for you.  

    [ Parent ]
    It's okay (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:41:24 AM EST
    Obama supporters SHOULD be panicking.

    Oh... were you talking about Hillary? heh

    [ Parent ]

    why panic (none / 0) (#145)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:45:07 AM EST
    I think Hillary is as good as Obama so no panic for me.  For the first time in years i have two candidates to pick from, I like that.  

    The desperation here from many of the Hill crowd is really embarassing though.  

    I still think Obama will win the nomination, but I would prefer it go to the delegation so that every vote is counted.

    [ Parent ]

    Being embarassed for (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:43:30 AM EST
    someone who holds a different opinion than you do is an odd reaction, frankly.

    It's OK for him to switch.  It may well be that will also signal to some of his SDs who jumped too soon that, they too, can switch.

    [ Parent ]

    It is not the differing (none / 0) (#146)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:46:48 AM EST
    of opinions, it is the reference of the kool-aid that seems desperate and whiny.  Jim Jones killed how many people with the kool aid?  

    Desperation reads as it is, and I stand firm, I am embarassed for the writer.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, come ON (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:00:13 AM EST
    Do a search for the phrase "drinking Kool-Aid" and you will find approximately 28 billion hits for that as a commonly-used phrase for political supporters of every stripe.

    You're just in here trying to stir up trouble amongst Hillary supporters, and you know it.  If you're so crazy for Obama, go make phone calls or something.  Otherwise, you're wasting your own time, and everyone else's.

    [ Parent ]

    Such anger (none / 0) (#181)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:11:43 AM EST
    Have you thought about a support group?

    [ Parent ]
    Actually we do have (5.00 / 3) (#208)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:12:05 PM EST
    a support group in mind should our candidate lose the nomination. It's called "Women Who Are Tired of Being Taken for Granted by the Democratic Party". After we get John McCain safely elected this time, we'll be forming a coalition of women who will work to put together a platform of issues that affect women and children.  In the next election cycle we will be raising money for candidates, male or female, who pledge to work for those issues.  From those candidates we hope to find our candidate, Republican, Democrat, or Independent, to run in the 2012 Presidential race.  Since our voting block is potentially more than half of all registered voters, we actually might be able to get an Independent elected.  

    [ Parent ]
    And yet (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by stillife on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:06:15 AM EST
    the Superdelegates will most likely nominate him anyway.  For whatever reason, they'd rather commit hara-kiri than nominate Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    I'd suggest reading (none / 0) (#72)
    by mulletov cocktails on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:23:04 AM EST
    Political Fictions by Joan Didion

    [ Parent ]
    Ship of fools (none / 0) (#82)
    by angie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:24:48 AM EST
    I really have nothing else to say.

    [ Parent ]
    Once again, the panic sets in... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by white n az on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:03:26 AM EST
    just like the week before PA election, now it's just a few days before another Tuesday where Obama is exposed to be a pathetically weak candidate.

    Makes sense for super delegates to come out now because after Tuesday's exposure, their feet will be in concrete

    Here's The Problem (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Claw on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:15:14 AM EST
    You're calling Obama a "pathetically weak candidate," but he's winning.  If Clinton can't beat someone so pathetically weak, how is she going to take on the republicans?  How is a pathetically weak candidate stealing Supers from her?  
    I don't think either candidate is weak and I'll happily vote for our nominee.  

    [ Parent ]
    He hasn't won (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by DJ on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:28:08 AM EST
    since like what February?

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by zyx on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:36:51 AM EST
    I just heard that he is the heavy favorite in the upcoming primary in Guam, day after tomorrow.

    [ Parent ]
    Regarding Andrew's instincts (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by mikeyleigh on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:04:59 AM EST
    Having SDs try and drive Hillary out of the race seems to fit OPbama's MO.  He's certainly been quite successful at getting rivals to either not run or drop out of races in the past.  

    this has nothing to do (5.00 / 8) (#23)
    by ccpup on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:05:16 AM EST
    with who's more electable in the GE.  It's all about putting up a strong front for Obama in the midst of massive blood-letting in the Polls and the the abandonment of the argument that he's the strongest to go up against McCain.  

    Andrew coming out for Barack now helps -- well, for those in the Kool-aid line -- to change the focus, if even for a news cycle, from just how bad things really are for him right now to the appearance that he's back on his game and regaining support, which is more than likely not the case.

    Besides, it's not like the voters have been paying attention to the Pundits anyway.  If that were the case, Clinton would have lost on Super Tuesday or March 4th or even in NH.  

    Must be truly bizarre as a Pundit to slowly have it dawn on you that whatever "power" you had to help sway public opinion has now dissipated (if not outright disappeared) and your words are being either discounted or utterly ignored.

    And, of course, IACF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Yup! (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:08:53 AM EST
    It's all about putting up a strong front for Obama in the midst of massive blood-letting in the Polls and the the abandonment of the argument that he's the strongest to go up against McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    I think we might get to see a game of poker (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:15:47 AM EST
    played.  He needs to take the SD lead from her by Tuesday to get some ampage but she has SD's endorsing her stepping up one or two at a time as well.  She isnt' going to want to give up the SD lead.  Everybody is on the phones!

    [ Parent ]
    but unless the SD (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by ccpup on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:17:45 AM EST
    is a very popular local politician with a great deal of sway -- I don't know if Andrew qualifies or not --, his switch is more for the media narrative (which many voters seem to ignore anyway) and will more than likely not change a single vote on Tuesday.

    Hillary still wins IN and comes within dangerous striking distance in NC.

    And, for selling papers or garnering viewers, THAT'S the kind of "fighter still down and out but winning despite pressure from the establishment and the naysayers" media narrative the people like!

    Hillary the Fighter seems to be Voter Gold.

    [ Parent ]

    Obamas campaign is claiming to have (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:22:06 AM EST
    SD's waiting in the wings.  Those SD's are going to have step forward now when he is starting to lag to pump him up if they can or they are going to fade further into the shadows to protect themselves because they are scared of endorsingn him now.  It's more about superD numbers than names today.  He needs to take that lead away from her.

    [ Parent ]
    if that's the case (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by ccpup on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:33:25 AM EST
    I agree with you, Barack needs to release them now and drag the media narrative back to his strength.  If he waits until after Tuesday when he loses IN and just barely scrapes by in the political battle that  is now becoming NC, some of those SDs may not pick up the frantic phone call post-Primary and, instead, be on the other line with Harold Ickes discussing whether it's better to announce one at a time or in a big block with the other SDs who've called.

    I strongly suspect there are many SDs who indicated to the Obama Camp in February or March that they were considering supporting him -- hence the SDs-in-the-pocket boast --, but may now be less willing to follow that earlier assertion with action in light of the plummeting polls and the Wright Fiasco.

    In fact, I wonder how many "we'll call you back"s Axelrod has heard since PA and Wright?

    [ Parent ]

    I'd say that too if I was in his position (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:39:45 AM EST
    and if there were SDs still wating to endorse.  It is partly true - SDs are waiting in the wings.

    My question is why are they waiting in the wings?  If the support is so strong then why aren't they just going ahead and endorsing him now?  By saying that people are just dying to do it, his campaign is deflecting the question of why they haven't already done so.

    [ Parent ]

    That's my question this morning as well (none / 0) (#141)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:43:43 AM EST
    He's starting to tank people..........where are the SuperDs?

    [ Parent ]
    Where is Rev. Wright??? (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by zfran on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:06:36 AM EST
    I thought maybe I was the only one who thought "conspiracy", but I've heard Geraldine Ferraro talk about it and I've seen it on this site. Seems that no matter what the polls are saying towards Hillary, MSNBC and CNN are tilting it towards Sen. Obama. I, too, have turned to Fox to at least get somewhat more fair and balanced. What is wrong with letting the people vote, and not "superdelegate-decide" before then. So, does anyone else smell "possible conspiracy" or am I too much off-topic here?!

    The problem with letting (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:24:52 AM EST
    people vote, is Obama's weaknesses will be apparent.  If he keeps bleeding voters, they know this will carry over to Nov.  Many people think the fix is in as far as saying they are too chicken to take back the White House in such difficult times.  Obama won't have momentum or a celebration is he loses the majority of the last states.  He looks weak.

    [ Parent ]
    Northwestern (none / 0) (#128)
    by DJ on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:38:41 AM EST
    just pulled back their invitation for Wright to speak at a June event.  I feel sorry for him.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought Hillary's interview with (none / 0) (#168)
    by hairspray on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:03:59 AM EST
    O'Reilly was quite good.  He tried to prod her a bit on Wright, but he wasn't as awful as Steve Kroft on "60 minutes".   Hillary kept up her side and got her points across better than with Keith Olberman who wanted to focus on her campaign ad and the fleeting shot of Osama in one of them.  At least O'Reilly argued with her on taxes, etc and they had a good debate on it. KO and MSNBC want to talk about "how do you respond to your opponent who says blah, blah about you?"

    [ Parent ]
    Definitely (none / 0) (#171)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:04:55 AM EST
    Clearly it's conspiracy.  The media has barely even mentioned the Wright thing.  And now they are going to report about a Clinton super-delegate flipping to Obama?  How is that news?

    [ Parent ]
    Democrats (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:06:38 AM EST
    are counting on voters looking at these latest incidents as mere challenges.  McCain's money issues are relevant here.  They are assuming Obama's money machine will continue to pour in and he'll outspend McCain.

    Personally, I think Obama will lose firmly in the Fall.

    He's now ensured that most conservative and moderates who may have toyed with the idea of not voting Republican this year will go for McCain.  

    And he really will lose that 30%.  That's another exit poll stat that I think a lot of Dems are thinking is exaggerated.  

    My take is that's actually conservative.  

    The stay-home factor is going to also be huge.  

    McCain (none / 0) (#58)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:20:34 AM EST
    won't have money issues in the fall.  Technically, he is still in primary mode until the convention. I bet the Republican floodgates will open up when he is officially the nominee. He raised $5.5 million at a fundraiser in Florida this week. And if Obama is the nominee - watch the donations pour into McCain.

    Joe Andrew can certainly support whom he wishes, but this is just strange timing of this whole thing.

    I think we are back to WWTSBQ?

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not very cool (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:44:12 AM EST
    What do your WW......letters mean?

    [ Parent ]
    http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/Story?id=47 (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Heather on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:07:21 AM EST
    Andrew said he would always be grateful to President Bill Clinton for making him the youngest DNC chairman ever, but said the party did not have to be guided by "blind loyalty." And the long and often bitter Democratic primary battle is helping Republican John McCain, Andrew warned.

    In an interview with ABC News, Andrew says he knows what's coming from his friends at the Clinton campaign.He anticipates the Clinton campaign "will use the same words and the same language to attack me that Republicans used to attack me when I was DNC chair and I was defending Bill Clinton."

    "I say this as a longtime participant in old politics," he says. "I've sparred with everyone from Lee Atwater to Karl Rove."

     "The same words will come out of the [Clinton campaign's] surrogates' mouths to attack me that the Republicans used -- and that demonstrates the very hypocrisy of the old politics," he says. "We need to unite the party. You can actually be for someone without being against someone else."

    He did not call the Clintons to tell them about the decision.

    "That's sort of the old kabuki theater of old politics, right?" Andrew says. "You call them in advance, they turn on their attack dogs to go after you." He's focused on "try[ing] to convince Hoosiers here in my home state of Indiana to back Obama and just as importantly to try to convince superdelegates."



    What an idiot he is (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:10:41 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Has Andrew mentioned anywhere (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:16:48 AM EST
    That he served with Rendell as national chair, and that he (Andrew) was "general" chair during his tenure?

    I'm just seeing a lot of laaaaa from him about being youngest chair, but what I remember from having lived in D.C. during that era is that Rendell commanded (much) more power in the DNC infrastructure.

    [ Parent ]

    Or that he worked for Diebold? (none / 0) (#120)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:37:16 AM EST
    [The original link doesn't work anymore because the story is archived]

    Not that it has anything to do with this endorsement, but a little background on Mr. Andrew.

    Diebold hires top Dem for PR blitz
    Former party chairman make the case for voting to California

    By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER
    08/20/2005 09:47:17 AM

    With a phone call and a retainer, Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell has launched former Democratic National Committee chairman Joe Andrew on a 50-state ambassadorship for electronic voting.

    O'Dell said he "wanted to reframe some of the issues," Andrew said.

    His first stop: California, the nation's largest market for voting machines and the place where Diebold's fortunes as the largest supplier of electronic-voting machines in the nation could be made or broken.

    "Even if you have tremendous success every place else," said Andrew, "if you can't sell technology in California, you're in trouble."

    The rest of the voting industry is selling technology here. Millions in federal dollars sit ready for counties to put at least one high-tech, handicapped-accessible voting machine in every polling place by January.

    But in California, Diebold can't sell its touchscreen voting machine, the AccuVote TSx, nor can counties that bought thousands of the machines in 2003 used them in elections.

    More than $30 million worth of TSx machines sit in three counties' warehouses, unapproved for actual voting. More than $15 million worth of earlier-generation Diebold touchscreens in Alameda, Los Angeles and Plumas counties cannot be used after January.

    Andrew said computer scientists and e-voting activists are standing in the way of a promising technology, an ATM-like voting computer with such a low error rate that more votes count. And that, said Andrew, should work to the benefit of Democrats.

    The tour pairs Andrew with former Republican congressional aide Melissa McKay, now working for the public-relations firm, Ogilvy PR. But California and its Democrats were clearly Andrew's show.

    Diebold's new charm offensive for Democrats strikes some as a public-relations gambit, a segue from mishaps and mistakes in its voting business to the uncontroversial notion of making more votes count for the elderly, minorities and disabled voters.

    "This is a new tactic, a new solution for a company that, unlike other electronic-voting companies, has a continuing public-relations problem, certainly in California," said Dan Seligson, editor of Electionline.org, a nonpartisan clearinghouse for voting-reform information.

    "It's not based on nothing," Seligson said. "It's based on the problems they've had."

    In three years in California, Diebold voting devices have awarded thousands of votes to the wrong candidates and broken down in two large counties during a presidential primary. Two successive state election chiefs, a Democrat and a Republican, both have rejected the TSx.

    Former Secretary of State Kevin Shelley suggested criminal prosecution, citing misleading statements by Diebold Election Systems executives and "reprehensible" tactics. The state joined a false-claims suit against the company and won a $2.5 million settlement.

    Last month, Secretary of State Bruce McPherson cited poor performance in state testing, with paper jams and software crashes in 28 percent of machines used in a mock election.

    But Andrew isn't traveling the nation to talk about that or even to talk much about Diebold. So why is a ranking Democratic operative who was convinced Republicans "stole" the 2000 election working for Diebold and O'Dell, a battlestate fund-raiser for Bush-Cheney 2004?

    It is Andrew's message - that paperless electronic voting is good for Democrats - and his connections in Democratic circles.

    "Joseph's a smart guy and has a lot of contacts out there," said Kimball Brace, president of Election Data Services, a Washington-based consultant on elections.

    Andrew is tapping reliable Democratic constituents - civil-rights groups, minority groups such as the NAACP and the National Association of Latino Elected Officials and such disability groups as the Council for the Blind.

    They rallied in 2001 under the umbrella of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights to rid the nation of reviled punchcard voting, and Andrew worked pro-bono as their lawyer. He delivered bipartisan support for the Help America Vote Act. Behind the act was the presumption that electronic voting was salvation from the dimpled and hanging chad and from having to resort to the Supreme Court to decide the presidency.

    But Congress delayed 16 crucial months in setting up a new federal agency to oversee and enforce standards for the new voting equipment. By 2003, the debate over voting equipment shifted from civil-rights groups and their lawyers to computer scientists who argued that electronic voting was too vulnerable to breakdowns, errors and fraud, at least without any backup paper record of the vote.

    So far, they've been winning. Despite resistance from Diebold and some other e-voting suppliers, lawmakers in 25 states have passed laws requiring a paper backup, for review by voters and in most cases recounts by elections officials. Fourteen other states and the District of Columbia are debating such a requirement.

    While Ohio, Mississippi and Utah are considering large purchases of touchscreens, sales of paper-based optical scanning machines so far are outpacing sales of electronic-voting machines since the 2004 election.

    In California at least, Andrew sees civil-rights leaders abdicating from a worthy cause. "The great irony is, it's the progressives - my side of the aisle - who are against electronic voting but have the most to benefit from it."

    The odd couple of Diebold and Andrew have "their work cut out for them," said Kim Alexander, president of nonprofit California Voter Foundation.

    She acknowledges that electronic voting has plenty going for it, such larger type for elderly voters, ballot displays in multiple languages and an audio ballot for visually impaired voters.

    "But the way it's been implemented has been irresponsible and reckless", Alexander said. "What we've seen all across the country are numerous examples of glitches and problems. I wish that Diebold would put it's effort into making better equipment and making its paper trail work, rather than a PR campaign."

    [ Parent ]

    Hey, a man's gotta make a living, right? (none / 0) (#178)
    by jawbone on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:09:59 AM EST
    The Kossacks ought to be thrilled to have a former Diebold shill on their side!

    Myabe he'll tell them how it's done....

    However, while a Dem might be used as cover, I don't think they share trade secrets with their political PR flack.

    [ Parent ]

    Bingo! (none / 0) (#67)
    by Heather on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:22:22 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    He may have (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by rnibs on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:18:39 AM EST
    sparred with Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, but I'm guessing that, given his idiotic reasoning here, that he lost to them every time.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL* (none / 0) (#64)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:21:59 AM EST
    I was thinking the same thing.  It would appear he has a mighty high opinion of himself.

    I was so annoyed at one SD who came out from CA for Obama.  Then I looked, and she really does represent one of the 3 counties he won there.  :)

    So she's off the hook.

    [ Parent ]

    The Super From CA (none / 0) (#104)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:29:59 AM EST
    that came out for Obama yesterday is Obama communication director Bill Burton's mother-in-law.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh my! (none / 0) (#147)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:48:47 AM EST
    I just found she was from Santa Barbara area.

    OK......she's really off the hook.  :)

    When I saw she was representing Ventura, which is in my neck of the woods, I bout went ballistic.

    But I googled her and figured out which district she represented.

    He did really win that county, which is a shame, because Ventura, Oxnard.....all those mid-CA cities exist ONLY because of low wages from Latino workers.

    And I'm not talking farm workers alone.

    All along that way, the entire hospitality industry is manned by Latino workers, and they are being exploited like nobody's business.

    Anyway, these SD for Obama announcements don't bother me today.

    They are just trying to stop the flow of blood and obviously had made up their minds already.

    [ Parent ]

    Clintons should ignore him (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by DJ on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:27:52 AM EST
    not even respond.  He is not relevant.

    [ Parent ]
    Character attacks (none / 0) (#106)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:30:24 AM EST
    Obama does not do it directly but this is the narrative they have set up from his campaign.  

    [ Parent ]
    Character Assassination (none / 0) (#176)
    by santarita on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:08:02 AM EST
    I read his letter.  Why is it so hard for him to just say that he supports Obama and talk about the positive aspects. Instead he finds it necessary to tear down his "friend" to build up his candidate. The negativity is simply unnecessary and makes all of this talk about new politics and change just empty rhetoric.  As I read his letter, I thought "Et tu, Brute?".  How disgusting.

    [ Parent ]
    Please, lets ignore him then (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by angie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:29:50 AM EST
    and I hope Hillary does too, just to prove him wrong. Of course, the msm will not report that, just this bs.

    [ Parent ]
    That some change (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by eric on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:36:07 AM EST
    He anticipates the Clinton campaign "will use the same words and the same language to attack me that Republicans used to attack me when I was DNC chair and I was defending Bill Clinton."

    "The same words will come out of the [Clinton campaign's] surrogates' mouths to attack me that the Republicans used -- and that demonstrates the very hypocrisy of the old politics,"

    "You call them in advance, they turn on their attack dogs to go after you."

    This is some serious CDS that he has come down with.  He goes from being a pro-Clinton SD to saying that they will attack him like like Republicans would?  That they would "turn their attack dogs" on him?

    He isn't only switching, he is delusional.

    Also, in that article, he makes it clear that he gave in and sipped the Kool-aid:

    "I have been inspired," Andrew said in a lengthy letter to superdelegates . . . "Don't settle for the tried and true and simplistic slogans, but listen to your heart and dare to be inspired," he wrote.

    It isn't a change in his vote, it is a practically a spiritual conversion...

    [ Parent ]

    Project much, Joe? (none / 0) (#182)
    by jawbone on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:13:03 AM EST
    Since Obama's campaign has been using Rove tactics and even some talking points, not strange to see a convert do the same.

    It's their MO.

    Which they say is the Clinton camp MO.

    Gee, maybe they both do politics politically!

    Heh!

    [ Parent ]

    It sounds also that he making his case (none / 0) (#99)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:28:47 AM EST
    ahead of time that he will be attacked. He will be a victim of the attacks. He does that so if they do set attack dogs on him he can say, I told you it would happen. They are attacking me for being disloyal. I hope all these geniuses who are separating the Dem party know that it is not us who did it. We had a front runner. And I am so disgusted with Pelosi. She thinks she is one of the boys, one of the power players now, but she has always been on thin ice. Maybe she thinks this will help her. Don't any of them realize that he will get the same push from the GOP over their ideas. It will be more 'I am with you, but I can't say more in public'.

    BTW, did Al Sharpton shut down New York yesterday? I didn't hear anymore of it. Was he told to shut up or what?

    [ Parent ]

    Are we back on asking Clinton to quit? (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Step Beyond on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:07:58 AM EST
    Why would they want to go back to the meme "Clinton should quit" when it obviously does not help the Obama campaign at all?

    Every time that card has been played it actually helps Clinton and currently it doesn't appear she needs any more help. If you want to change the focus from Wright you don't change it something else that helps Clinton.

    It's all about the caysh! (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Jim J on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:10:30 AM EST
    This is the most prolific fundraiser in U.S. history we're talking about. Of course they'd rather have him be the nominee than a Clinton in the White House, even if it's a loss.

    It's really (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:21:47 AM EST
    about 2012 and who can attach themselves to his fundraising machine. I think the Washington Dems have already conceded the election to McCain.

    The problem is, though, how worthwhile is an atm machine from a landslide loser?

    [ Parent ]

    I'd respectfully answer: A hell of a lot (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Jim J on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:26:34 AM EST
    I mean, look at the crop of losers atop our party now: Kerry, Kennedy, Reid, Pelosi. They can raise money out of their a-holes and look how much they've accomplished over the years: Bupkus. I'd certainly add Gore to that list except for his notable post-politics work.

    The Clintons are the obvious and notable exceptions because they are the only ones who actually want to win and try and do something, however imperfect, for the country.

    Democrats are beautiful losers. That's why Obama, sadly, will end up being the nominee and the loser in November. It is written, so it shall be done.

    [ Parent ]

    I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:37:25 AM EST
    How many folks are Obama-specific donors who won't necessarily give to the DNC or other candidates?

    I'd posit a lot of them fit that profile (Oprah).  Otherwise, why is the DNC struggling for cash right now?  Obama ought to be ashamed of himself for having not already worked to right that wrong, and starting months ago.  But as usual, it's Obamites for Obama, and they don't much care about party history or any other mitigating factors...

    [ Parent ]

    I was under the impression... (none / 0) (#134)
    by sweetthings on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:40:41 AM EST
    That Obama has shared a great deal more money with other candidates and the DNC than Hillary has during this primary. Is that not correct?

    Of course, Obama has more money to share, but it still goes against the argument that Obama is only about himself.

    [ Parent ]

    "sharing money" (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by angie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:44:41 AM EST
    could also be seen as "bribery" -- just saying.

    [ Parent ]
    True. (none / 0) (#154)
    by sweetthings on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:52:02 AM EST
    But it's also a vital measure of success in politics. Much of the Clinton's success can be attributed to the fact that Bill was a fund-raising phenom in his day, (and is no slouch even now!) just as Obama is today.

    [ Parent ]
    angie, are you for real??? (none / 0) (#160)
    by independent voter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:55:48 AM EST
    Are you actually going to find fault with a Dem politician helping another Dem politician fund their campaign??
    Unbelievable, the lengths some of you will go to to rationalize Clinton's weaknesses.

    [ Parent ]
    am I for real? are you? (none / 0) (#170)
    by angie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:04:48 AM EST
    No, I don't think it is "bribery" per se, but your characterization of it is much, much more ludicrous as some type of benevolence on Obama's part to "help out" his fellow Dems. It is buying votes/buying support -- not illegal, but def. quid pro quo -- it is how the system works, but nothing to "brag" about.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#162)
    by DJ on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:58:17 AM EST
    and if you check the list of $10k donations this year and in 2006 it lines up nicely with the SDs for the most part.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, but (none / 0) (#172)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:05:04 AM EST
    There's more than one way to do it.  Headline an event, say, with money from ticket sales going to the DNC.  Or appear at fundraisers for other candidates.  Make a point of saying at events that  folks need to give money to the DNC, DCCC, DSCC, etc.

    I don't remember hearing Obama say anything like that, ever.  But then, I go to great lengths to avoid watching Obama on television or reading anything about him, so maybe I'm not the person to ask.

    [ Parent ]

    To be fair (none / 0) (#199)
    by ChrisO on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:41:29 AM EST
    the stories about Obama giving money to elected supers was about money he raised for them before he was a candidate, IIRC. I really don't think we want to be bashing people for raising money for Dem candidates. Lots of politicians do fundraisers for other candidates,and in many cases they're building a network of support for later races. There's really nothing underhanded about it.

    It is a legitimate issue, however, to look into how obligated some of the supers feel to Obama as a result. Not to imply corruption, but simply to understand the dynamics of certain endorsements.

    [ Parent ]

    Good Comment. (none / 0) (#186)
    by santarita on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:17:54 AM EST
    This for me is another piece of the puzzle that is falling into place. I understand various motivations among the SDs - looking to ride coattails, promises of cabinet or other Administration positions, favors repaid, etc.  But I hadn't thought about the cash angle.  Of course, I am not discounting the fact that some have purer motives for support.  

    "Old wine in a new bottle".  Oh well.

    [ Parent ]

    A Democratic "Leader" (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by BDB on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:11:03 AM EST
    misreads the electorate and changes position out of fear.  Say it ain't so.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:23:36 AM EST
    this is so entirely predictable, it's laughable.

    [ Parent ]
    There is no "will" (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:11:54 AM EST
    It does make him look weak.

    Speaking as someone who isn't in one camp or the other, trying to shove a candidate out (one who is in a statistical dead heat with the other) before the people have had their say is, quite frankly, lame...and makes the "still standing" candidate look weak.

    He needs to show that he can close this deal...not have it closed for him from above.

    Thus far, I haven't seen the "Close."

    I don't think either candidate... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by sweetthings on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:16:26 AM EST
    Can 'close' at this point. As a party, we're split right down the middle, and primary after primary has simply reinforced that split. Neither candidate can really make an inroad into the other's core constituencies, which remain extremely loyal.

    This one is headed to the judges for a decision.

    [ Parent ]

    Why can't he close if he's the one (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:24:18 AM EST
    we're supposed to rally around? If everyone keeps saying he's the rightful nominee, then he should have closed the deal by now. We can rally around either so why him? It makes him seem weak because he can only win if others intervene against her.

    [ Parent ]
    Not to mention his having outspent her (none / 0) (#130)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:39:04 AM EST
    something like 5/1 so far.

    [ Parent ]
    For the same reason Clinton can't. (none / 0) (#148)
    by sweetthings on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:48:58 AM EST
    Remember, everyone isn't saying he's the rightful nominee - it just seems that way in blogosphere. Our party appears to be split right down the middle on this one. Half of us are voting for Obama, half for Hillary. Demographics is destiny, time and time again. Despite the best efforts of both candidates, the supporters of their opponent remain unmoved.

    So here we are. Obama can only win if the Supers support him, true. But the same goes for Hillary. So if a candidate is 'weak' because they have to rely on Superdelegates to push them over the top, then we're going to be stuck with a weak candidate in November no matter which one we nominate.

    [ Parent ]