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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • 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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


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

    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.

    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...)


    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?

    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?)


    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.

    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?

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


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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
    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.

    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".


    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.


    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.  :)

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.



    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!)

    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!



    [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! :) ]

    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?




    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)


    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....

    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.

    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...

    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.  

    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


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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?

    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.  

    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.

    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

    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.

    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.  

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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!

    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.


    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.

    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?


    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.


    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?

    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.

    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.

    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?"

    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?

    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?


    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?

    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
    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.


    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."


    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.


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

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.  

    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.

    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.

    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...


    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!



    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?


    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?


    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.


    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...


    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.


    "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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    I think (none / 0) (#183)
    by BernieO on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:13:31 AM EST
    media love is destiny. Which will be a problem in the GE. The love of McCain still burns strong in the breasts of our vaunted media.

    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:51:59 AM EST
    apparently that is not true.

    Hillary made in-roads on the youth vote.
    Hillary made in-roads on the educated vote.
    Hillary made in-roads on the below-60 white vote.

    PA was not all about "bubbas."

    She made some impressive in-roads on his core constinuency.


    Obama has had (none / 0) (#60)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:21:13 AM EST
    plenty of opportunities throughout the last several elections to deliver the definitive ("closing") win.

    As it stands, the #s show there won't be a clear winner til the Convention.

    But there've been a number of chances for something more definitive. He hasn't done it.


    Sure. (none / 0) (#93)
    by sweetthings on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:27:07 AM EST
    But neither has Clinton. She could have stopped him at the gate in Iowa. She didn't. She could have put him away on Super Tuesday. She didn't. I suppose she probably has one more chance coming up in NC, but personally I don't think she'll do it there either.

    So we're left with two candidates who are both strong in some categories and weak in others, but lack the ability to knock the other one out. So whichever one wins, it's going to be by decision. (split decision, from the looks of it!)

    I don't see any way around that at this point. What could Obama possibly do to 'close?' What could Clinton do?


    Good point (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:31:33 AM EST
    except the thrill of Obama was sky-high.  She couldn't have gotten a decent headline then if she'd bought the NY TIMES herself and turned it into her own paper.  LOL*

    Remember?  Every single story was about how many people showed up at his rally and all the clips were "Yes We Can!," complete with fainting women.

    And then.....the AA fall-out.  Whew*

    It's amazing she wasn't blown out entirely!

    The biggest story of the year was Texas.  That was amazing.

    That was campaigning on Bill's part and her tenacity that pulled it out of the dumper.


    Not talking about her... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:32:20 AM EST
    Frankly, my original point goes for her as well. If the SDs turn around and give her endorsements like the one Andrew gave Obama, the "intervention from above" will make her look weak too.

    So I think you missed my point.

    Though as it stands now, she's rising in the polls and, apparently...after a couple months of being behind, passing him.


    and BTW... (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:38:37 AM EST
    it's not the SD endorsement...it's the style and language of this particular endorsement that's wonky and sorta back handed..

    Clinton can keep fighting (none / 0) (#103)
    by DJ on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:29:58 AM EST
    and Obama can keep whining.

    The judges I can accept (none / 0) (#100)
    by Manuel on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:29:23 AM EST
    But don't they usually render a decision after the match is over?

    A superdelegate "primary" mini convention in June after all the voting is done might not be a bad idea.  Each campaign could make an hour long presentation on why they should win.  It could include an unmoderated debate.  Afterwards, the SDs would declare themselves and we would have a nominee.


    I used to (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:12:16 AM EST
    laugh when someone wrote something about the DNC having all ready decided that Obama was to be the nominee and were determined to make it happen. Now I'm not laughing; just shaking my head.

    It was obvious that the story the media wanted told was an AA and a woman. With the AA being the nominee. That I never laughed at just wondered why we all seemed to just accept that. (Not saying we liked it; just saying that a lot of people a whole lot smarter and better informed than me seem to have reached a level of pragmatic acceptance that I cannot seem to achieve.)

    Obama supporters will no doubt do their victory dance in our face (nah, nah, nah, nah nah) and we will try not to let it depress us too much and we will all move on to the next high or low for our respective candidate.

    But doesn't even the most ardent Obama supporter see something sleazy about a man turning on someone he should, had he any honor at all, owe some loyalty too? And because he wants an end to the citizens of this country being allowed to vote? Just a tiny little twitch of a nerve ending that says that's not what progressives are all about?

    The Wright (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:35:46 AM EST
    story is definitely not over.  Just as Hillary's gaffe in Bosnia may have gone off the radar, but it hurt her on "trust" polling.  People still voted for her, so they do trust her to deliver results.  That's important.  But they clearly know she's a real politician.

    Obama?  They are just figuring out who he is.  Even when he clearly denunciated Wright he couldn't resist pretending that Wright is "different" and "changed" and "never was my mentor."  Bold-faced lies.  Bigger whoppers than sniper fire.

    I trust regular people to figure this out for themselves.  I am optimistic.

    They don't believe Wright is Obama.  They don't care about Wright.  They DO care that Obama lies and manipulated with that race speech.  They feel a bit sorry for him.  But not enough to vote for him.


    That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!  


    Why oh why do the American public seem (none / 0) (#207)
    by hairspray on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:11:50 PM EST
    to want a "regular guy" as president? Or someone from the outside to "shake things up" so much that they refuse to look at who really runs for office?  A policy wonk is a whole lot better than "aww shucks" in my mind.

    They can nah nah (none / 0) (#193)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:29:41 AM EST
    all they want.  I think this endorsement is an embarrassment.  To endorse because you know someone can't win is not a good endorsement.  I am easily dismayed by this process, but this one has absolutely no effect on me other than to put a knowing smirk on my face. bwaahaaahaaa :)

    Just thinking that one bright side (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by bslev22 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:13:49 AM EST
    to Joe Andrews' switch to Obama is that it confirms that superdelegates can switch back and forth and then back again if they so choose. I think that if Hillary wins big in Indiana and if she keeps things respectable in NC, then maybe the Joe Andrews of the world will commence an alternate migration. Stay tuned folks and buckle up.

    Excellent point! (none / 0) (#91)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:26:42 AM EST
    Switching (none / 0) (#155)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:52:55 AM EST
    is obviously going to be OK this year.

    I agree with you.  This can boomerang.


    Andrews (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Pat Johnson on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:22:54 AM EST
    I would love to know what is going on backstage.  These endorsements don't make much sense.  Obama is losing support among the voters and the polls are showing that his numbers are dropping yet rather than hold out until the last vote is at least official, these people keep rushing out to make an announcement.  Something "funny" about these endorsements lately.  

    They are (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:24:55 AM EST
    taking Dean's marching orders.  That's all.

    Dean has been on the road campaigning for Obama for 2 weeks now.


    Sorry for the broken record, but: (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Jim J on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:28:41 AM EST
    It's about the benjamins. Dean is not even trying to cover that up at this point.

    These losers see the dollar signs flashing and don't really care if they have the White House as long as they have a fat donor list of Moveon.org and dKos suckeroonies.


    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:37:07 AM EST
    You know who has all the money in this country?

    Older women.  :)

    They keep painting this cozy picture of "old women in a shoe,"

    but actually, we're the money bags.  *haha


    Ah, but they don't part with it as easily (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Jim J on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:43:13 AM EST
    as the schmucks on the Obama blogs.

    LOL* (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:53:52 AM EST
    (You are so dang right!)

    Andrew is dogwhistling to Hillaries! (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Josey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:23:56 AM EST
    This will rile up Hillary supporters and increase donations!

    You nailed it.... (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:04:28 AM EST
    I felt that ire rise up when I read this yesterday.  

    I'm repeating myself, but I had no idea how potent this business of being ignored by the Congressional Dems could be for me, personally.

    I am so deeply offended now I can't tell you!

    It's all good, though.

    Reality is always a better place, once I'm done being mad.


    What say you all of this? (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:36:45 AM EST
    New battleground numbers via Quinnipiac (MoE 2.5-2.9):

    Clinton 49, McCain 41
    McCain 44, Obama 43

    Clinton 48, McCain 38
    McCain 43, Obama 42

    Clinton 51, McCain 37
    Obama 47, McCain 38

    Wow (none / 0) (#132)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:39:47 AM EST
    I presume his supporters will say it's still too early to pay attention to these polls.

    But that does sort of tell the story.


    I think you have it backwards. (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by jimotto on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:44:12 AM EST
    You say

    Obama needs to beat Clinton, not have the Superdelegates drive Clinton from the race

    Obama will have beaten Clinton amoungst the delegates chosen by voters come June 3.  The only way Clinton can win is to have Superdelegates drive him from the race.

    No, not backwards... (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:32:39 AM EST
    equal.  It has always been equal.  Neither can win without superdelegates.  duh.

    OT: MSNBC is showing Easley endorsement (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:49:55 AM EST
    not Andrew's. Talking to NC reporter who's saying Wright is hurting O there. Back to your regulary scheduled topic.

    "just remember this, (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:19:24 AM EST
    a kiss is just a kiss"---  No, wrong movie; those drums, drums! I can't think straight.  I've just a minute between this morning's physical jerks and The Leader's speech.  It's the one about race today.  (What's race?  I can't remember.)  Big DNC is watching me.  I see the eye on TV, and the channel won't change anymore.   I don't have long now; I hear the footsteps.  

    "Yes!  Yes!  Votes are bad.  Big DNC is taking care of us.  No, don't take me away, I won't vote again!  Please--

    "Remember!  For your own safety, you never heard of meeeee--"

    Andrew did the right thing (1.00 / 1) (#129)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:39:01 AM EST
    and I hope more PLEOs follow suit. There is very little to distinguish one candidate from the other in terms of policy. Obama has proven himself more politically competent by virtue of the campaign he has run. Andrew is far from alone in believing that continuing the primary benefits McCain and hurts the party. Thank you, Joe Andrew, for your courage and wisdom.

    This did surprise me (none / 0) (#2)
    by Lil on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:55:34 AM EST
    I initially thought it was boneheaded timing, but maybe I'm very naive and there are bigger things in play, than I am aware of. It is disconcerting that the Clintons seemed to have aliented a group of folks that know them better than the average folks among us. Makes me wonder what I am missing.

    It's just politics. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by sweetthings on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:08:29 AM EST
    The Clintons, for good or for ill, have been the dominant force in the Democratic Party for the last 16 years. You simply can't do that without racking up a lot of enemies. You also rack up a lot of favors owed, which is good...as long as you constantly look strong. But if you ever look weak, then the situation changes rapidly. Your enemies see a chance to move, and those that owe you favors see a chance to escape their debt.

    This explains why Hillary had over 100 delegates in her pocket before the first vote was ever cast, and why she's losing them so quickly now. She entered looking strong, and nobody wants to oppose the strong. Then she screwed up, and gave Obama an opening. Now, even as Obama falters, it's all she can do to fend off the knives.

    But she fends very well indeed.


    Everything black and white in your world? (none / 0) (#121)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:37:23 AM EST
    There are hundreds of people connected to the only Dem presidency in 28 years. They are neither friends or enemies for the most part. She is not fending off knives. That is nonsense.

    Joe Andrew was (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by santarita on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:34:05 AM EST
    wielding a dagger.  All's fair in love and political wars, I guess.  Right now we common folk are being given a glimpse into the smoke-filled back rooms and it's not a pretty picture that we are seeing.

    WMD's. That's what's missing (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by goldberry on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:16:29 AM EST
    Remember when all the Bushies were screaming that we had to invade Iraq because of the WMD's and then we get there are there are no WMD's?  It was all a big scam to take over the country, the oil fields and use it as a huge laboratory for a completely unfettered free market?  And all the contractors who got billions of tax payer money and did shoddy work?  Remember all that?  

    So, now the DNC is intimating that Hillary Clinton has WMD's and she's going to destroy the party but where are the satellite maps, the photos, the missing uranium?  I see no evidence that there are WMD's and I'm exptremely skeptical of the whole, "She's going to destroy the party if we don't elect Obama" hype.  

    There's probably a lot of money in it for someone.  


    Missing? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:59:31 AM EST
    He owed someone something and he is paying back.  I don't believe they have a clue. Some of these guys have no guts either.   That is why I think they will make the wrong decision.  

    What group? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:06:55 AM EST
    BTD, no word from Wright yet? (none / 0) (#4)
    by MarkL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:57:26 AM EST
    Isn't that suspicious? It certainly makes me think I am being played.

    Or maybe he's pissed and waiting for (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:59:49 AM EST
    maximum impact.

    Is there any doubt he's pissed? Heh (none / 0) (#206)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:07:31 PM EST
    I agree with you about maximum impact.  Or he's naming his price behind the scenes.

    Played and played big (none / 0) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:00:28 AM EST
    I am starting to agree with you.  I don't believe anything anymore from the Obama campaign.  

    Wright can't speak publicly. (none / 0) (#56)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:19:27 AM EST
    If he does so, he'll go down in history as the buffoon who sunk the chances of the first serious black Presidential candidate.  As much as he wants to be heard, at a time in his life when he's probably thinking "legacy" I'm sure that's not how he wants to be remembered.

    So why was he speaking before? (none / 0) (#61)
    by MarkL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:21:21 AM EST
    He's not stupid. This was a set-up.

    thread-jacking. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Addison on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:22:18 AM EST
    Is your name Armando? (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by MarkL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:26:52 AM EST
    If it were I would've just deleted it... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Addison on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:37:48 AM EST
    ...so, obviously not.

    How so? Have you somehow twisted this (none / 0) (#71)
    by independent voter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:23:00 AM EST
    to be a benefit for Obama?
    Maybe Rev. Wright is getting MAJOR push back from prominent AAs, and he is letting it go now.

    Um, the talking heads all say this (none / 0) (#90)
    by MarkL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:26:37 AM EST
    has benefited Obama. He's gotten two IN SD's since he repudiate Wright. He couldn't repudiate Wright until Wright said something NEW he could object to, since he has refused to do so before.
    It makes perfect sense.

    And yet many polls are cited here that (none / 0) (#118)
    by independent voter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:36:50 AM EST
    show the Wright controversy has hurt Obama (at least in the short term). You cannot have it both ways.

    I'm having it one way: Obama gained (none / 0) (#126)
    by MarkL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:38:30 AM EST
    SD's who previously thought he needed to repudiate Wright. He COULD NOT repudiate Wright before Wright gave the interviews and speeches.
    It does make sense. Whether or not there was coordination, I don't know.

    The pundits (none / 0) (#124)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:38:13 AM EST
    have been more wrong than right this year.

    But I personally think that's because a lot of them really aren't political analysts at all.

    They are just TV reporters who got a bump up.


    Maybe the church (none / 0) (#107)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:31:03 AM EST
    got a really big donation from Obama on the condition that Wright  -- STFU!!!!

    Could be, yes?

    It wasn't staged, IMHO. It was too damaging to be staged.


    Obama's (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:57:59 AM EST
    certainly in trouble but will the Washington Dems care?

    If Washington Dems don't care (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by felizarte on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:03:39 AM EST
    Why should I?  

    ding, ding, ding (none / 0) (#101)
    by Jim J on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:29:25 AM EST
    we have a winner.

    My Sentiments Exactly n/t (none / 0) (#152)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:50:35 AM EST
    No I Don't Think So (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:23:19 AM EST
    IMO they are more afraid of the party losing Obama supporters than they are of losing the WH in November.

    I think they care (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:01:36 AM EST
    His SuperD's who are true Obama believers are going to endorse one at a time in an attempt to drive up his support but after the true believers.......and who knows how many that is........then what?  Down ticket candidates are beginning to pay a price for endorsing Obama.  It seems that the GOP attack ads on down ticket candidates that did that in N.C. has been making an impact on the democratic voters.

    They have not appeared to care... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Leisa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:01:39 AM EST
    the timing is the usual politics (none / 0) (#9)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:00:04 AM EST
    I'm sure this and a few more releases today was carefully arranged. One thing this does is take attention away from the Wright story. It also attempts to suppress the vote by making the Indiana and NC voters feel like it's already over and their vote won't count. It's a good move at a superficial political level. I agree with BTD though, that this makes Obama look very weak that he has to be rescued from defeat by the SD's or party bosses.

    I think that (none / 0) (#20)
    by Leisa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:04:59 AM EST
    it can also make people question Hillary when she loses an endorsement from a SD.   That is what it is about and the timing of it is to shore up Obama.  

    Problem is (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:10:45 AM EST
    Andrew was not closely aligned with the Clintons in the sense of, say, Maggie Williams or Melanne Verveer; if anything he was put in to carry the day to day water at the DNC as "general" chair (similar to an executive director) while Ed Rendell served as "national" chair.

    We all know what Rendell's doing now....


    As (none / 0) (#18)
    by sas on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:03:40 AM EST
    I said before, it makes me think sometimes this whole thing is rigged.  

    Could he pick a worse moment to switch endorsements from a pure momentum point of view, unless this is designed to stop Obama's bleeding.  

    It makes the Super D look like an idiot, especially since he expresses that it is time to unite behind Obama, not necessarily the candidate who can win.

    I honestly do think it's been rigged (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Jim J on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:31:52 AM EST
    Why else would a guy not even in the Senate be highlighted at a national convention? Why else would a guy three years out of a state legislature that meets 50 days a year decide to run for president, thus screwing up the best chance for a Dem White House in 75 years?

    And how is he getting all that money, this total unknown with no notable experience?

    I haven't trusted the Dem nomination process since Kerry rocketed out of nowhere to take Iowa in '04. I'm no Dean fan by any means, but that still stinks to high heaven.


    Does anyone think he just decided on his own? (none / 0) (#22)
    by MarkL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:05:11 AM EST
    Obviously not? Of course, this is just politics. The point is that his endorsement is weak, as BTD already wrote.

    an "American Idol" nomination rigged?!? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Josey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:17:58 AM EST
    who wudda thunk it!

    Andrews' instincts are terrible unless . . . (none / 0) (#41)
    by AF on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:12:50 AM EST
    He is motivated by the belief that --- as he said --- Obama is "the right candidate for our party."

    If his goal is to help Obama's candidacy, his endorsement comes at a very good time.

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:19:46 AM EST
    His main message was about concern that the race has gone on too long.

    You mean the DNC process (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:26:13 AM EST
    with all the moronic rules is exposing itself.  I think the DNC folks will go for Obama to cover up how their "roolz" and process is designed to make the Democrats lose each and every time.  They don't want the voters to decide.  

    It almost make me think (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by stillife on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:41:09 AM EST
    the fix is in and they want to lose in November.  Do they really believe that Middle America will elect Obama?  

    Kind of reminds me of "The Producers" - except in this case, the Broadway flop is not going to turn into a hit.


    And no Zero Mostell (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:50:00 AM EST

    They want to lose (none / 0) (#175)
    by TedL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:07:07 AM EST
    And this is why a majority of elected Congressmen and Senators support Obama, too?

    Because they want to lose?

    That's an, um, unconventional view of what motivates DNC members and politicians.


    I have a lot to say about that too (none / 0) (#105)
    by ruffian on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:30:09 AM EST
    but will save it for another thread, and for when I have wrapped my brain around it a little better.

    Yes - Obama looked a lot more (none / 0) (#86)
    by ruffian on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:25:35 AM EST
    like the right candidate for the party 5 months ago - why did he not endorse him then if he is so sold on him?  He just wants the race to be over and sees this as the most expedient way to make it happen.

    The right candidate for the party coffers? (none / 0) (#62)
    by MarkL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:21:44 AM EST
    and the opposite is equally true (none / 0) (#51)
    by po on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:17:57 AM EST
    Re: "[Clinton[ needs to beat [Obama], not have the Superdelegates drive [Obama] from the race."

    The difference is (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by stillife on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:34:41 AM EST
    no one is trying to drive Obama from the race.

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:19:03 AM EST
    Was Andrew an annouced SD for Hilary before? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Saul on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:18:20 AM EST
    If he was and switched who got to him or what was he promised?  I would investigate.

    If not and  has always been for Obama maybe he is seeing the swing of voters to Hilary in Indiana and NC  because of the Wright incident and does not want Hilary to get anymore momentum so lets nail her now before she gets to good. Therefore he wants to start a momentum on other delegates by saying,  

    Hey look at me I was appointed by Clinton to the DNC and even I am voting for Obama. Doesn't that tell you something?

    He was announced for Hillary. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Faust on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:22:50 AM EST
    Since the beginning of her campaign.

    He announced for Hillary (none / 0) (#79)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:23:59 AM EST
    He was one of the very first ones to announce for her last year.

    I think the Andrew thing is a panic move (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:25:31 AM EST
    they see what is coming and are going to pull out all the stops.

    Agree (none / 0) (#94)
    by ruffian on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:27:50 AM EST
    thjey want as many SDs committed to Obama as they can get before the next primaries, where I believe Hillary is going to clean up.

    Can't they see how ridiculous that makes them look?


    I'll expand on that (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by ruffian on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:38:24 AM EST
    By doing this now, they look like they are nakedly asking SDs to counteract the will of the people in PA, and in IN and NC and the other states to come.

    Isn't that exactly what they did not want to look like they were doing?


    no no (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:55:41 AM EST
    it ok to counter the will of the people as long as in benefits Obama.

    Not look but is weak, its the DNC that he shames (none / 0) (#87)
    by Salt on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:25:47 AM EST
    just more fuel for the view of a fixed race and of a DNC pushing a pretender nominee.  I am amazed at the discussion that Obama is still viable for Nov. IMO he is not, people are walking on the Party not just Obama the view is the collective Party persona knew and embraced the extremist elements of Obama's campaign even applauded it until Monday.  And Michael Moore is a bad choice surrogate and reminiscent of Wrightto send out to tackle the Obama Wright issue he's another one Obama should have put in the closet with Wright.

    Andrew on Fox (none / 0) (#114)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:35:08 AM EST
    New people who have never vote will,   Mccain doing better, attack each other solidifying bases against each other, unite the party, important vote on tues, can't wait until entire process over anymore, polls show that.

    Fox Clinton compliments of Andrew's initial endorsement, end this or is Obama best"

    I knew nothing about O, I new Clinton, best pres. like millions I've learned about O handles controversy after controversy, tone, etc.. we blame on Bush but we are to  blame too, learned from Rove to vote (?sorry missed that part), O takes positions not in his interest and provides solutions, he really will change poli.

    I did not call C or O, reject political theatre, not courtesy, old political theater, loyal to C, greatt pres , best int of party and US, that's why I'm supporting Obama

    Won't this give C rallying cry, shut this down?

    No, not shut down, Hoos vote and others, superdees need to decide to unify behind, millions will get to vote and their votes count (ha), critical for sd, time for them to exercise their ??? missed that part.

    Andrew Disgusted By Clinton's Tactics (none / 0) (#158)
    by AdrianLesher on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:54:31 AM EST
    Andrew seems to be more moved by the negative type of campaign that Clinton has run as he is by the immediate poll results. Here is what he has to say on the matter:

    My endorsement of Senator Obama will not be welcome news to my friends and family at the Clinton campaign. If the campaign's surrogates called Governor Bill Richardson, a respected former member of President Clinton's cabinet, a "Judas" for endorsing Senator Obama, we can all imagine how they will treat somebody like me. They are the best practitioners of the old politics, so they will no doubt call me a traitor, an opportunist and a hypocrite. I will be branded as disloyal, power-hungry, but most importantly, they will use the exact words that Republicans used to attack me when I was defending President Clinton.

    When they use the same attacks made on me when I was defending them, they prove the callow hypocrisy of the old politics first perfected by Republicans. I am an expert on this because these were the exact tools that I mastered as a campaign volunteer, a campaign manager, a State Party Chair and the National Chair of our Party. I learned the lessons of the tough, right-wing Republicans all too well. I can speak with authority on how to spar with everyone from Lee Atwater to Karl Rove. I understand that, while wrong and pernicious, shallow victory can be achieved through division by semantics and obfuscation. Like many, I succumbed to the addiction of old politics because they are so easy.

    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:00:15 AM EST
    Since no one attacked him it seems to me Andrew has a log in his eye.

    He seems a perfect idiot to me.


    Is he more principled (none / 0) (#179)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:10:17 AM EST
    than the PLEOs who endorsed Clinton before any primary or caucus was held? Or is he less principled? Please explain your logic.

    You've stated before that you believe the Obama nomination is all but inevitable. I'm assuming that Andrew's implicit agreement with you on that point isn't what makes him a perfect idiot.


    No (none / 0) (#185)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:17:39 AM EST
    He is not. there is no principle to this endorsment. That is my problem with it.

    There is a principle (none / 0) (#188)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:23:22 AM EST
    You just don't agree with it, or can't see it. He thinks the nominating contest should end. He (like you) believes Obama will ultimately be the nominee. He (unlike you) has the power to do something about that now. So he did. What is wrong with that?

    You've also written that there are no substantial policy differences between the two candidates. Is he a perfect idiot if he believes that, too?


    When that's the reason (none / 0) (#180)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:11:10 AM EST
    I turn a deaf ear.

    Obama is the one who put out constant ads attacking her character.

    So anytime a politician says that it's due to her tactics, he's pandering to the perception not the truth.

    And he's toast to me.


    Joe's "attack" endorsement at odds with (none / 0) (#195)
    by jawbone on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:32:18 AM EST
    Obama saying his campaign is going to be more focused on the positives of his own proposals, etc.

    Of course, according to Mayfield Fowler at HuffPo, via NoQuarter, Obama himself ignored that admonition himself shortly after talking about it:

    Despite his remark to Hickory that he's told his staff the campaign needs to get away from going negative, Senator Obama laid into Senator Clinton, usually in conjunction with Senator McCain, several times during the afternoon. At one point he said, "Lately the other candidates aren't talking about their ideas-they're talking about me." As far as Senator Clinton is concerned, nothing could be further from the truth. She presents more ideas on the stump than she has time for. This misrepresentation incensed a group of women friends in Hickory. They had seen Hillary Clinton several times in North Carolina and had come to hear Barack Obama before finally making up their minds. Scratch twelve votes for him.

    "Don't hit on Hillary." Only the day before the Hickory event, Jean Weiss, a feisty eighty-two year-old, told Obama, when he called on her, thinking he would get a question, just that. Age admonishing youth, it was a powerful moment that the crowd much appreciated. That Senator Obama seemed to have forgotten Weiss only a day later may be a sign only of Wright-driven stress.


    Earlier in his endorsement/disendorsement letter, (none / 0) (#201)
    by jawbone on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:43:40 AM EST
    Joe A. writes this about the Clintons:

    I believe that Bill Clinton will be remembered as one of our nation's great Presidents, and Senator Clinton as one of our nation's great public servants. But as much as I respect and admire them both, it is clear that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists John McCain.

    Kind of hard to square this with the paragraphs above attacking them as the Roves among the Democrats.

    Conflicted? Confused? Offered a great job in an Obama administration? Who knows what lies in the hearts of men.


    So why is he using the same tactics? (none / 0) (#202)
    by santarita on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:46:38 AM EST
    He spends a lot of words talking down Clinton's character as opposed to talking up Obama.  It's the same old politics of "If someone is up, then someone else must be down".  If the Obama candidacy is so obviously superior, why is it necessary to drag another Democrat through the mud?

    The things that makes Andrew look like an idiot (none / 0) (#203)
    by ChrisO on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:54:05 AM EST
    to me are 1)he supposely was swayed by the way Obama has handled the Wright issue, which is absolutely the weakest part of a pretty well run campaign and 2)Obama's stand on the gas tax holiday. Is there any more unsubstantial issue than the gas tax holiday, something neither candidate is actually in a position to implement? I get that a lot of economists say it's a bad idea, but really, actually switching your endorsement because of it? Of all the issues in this campaign, that's the one that causes him to switch teams? He's either a liar or a fool.