home

An Endorsement Not On The Merits

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:18:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I have no respect for this endorsement:

[Former Clinton superdelegate Joe] Andrew said in his letter that he is switching his support because "a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists (Republican) John McCain."

Is Obama gonna be a better President? No. Apparently Andrew still thinks Hillary Clinton will be a better President. Is there an issue that moves Andrew? No. Is Obama even more electable than Clinton? Um, no. So why switch? The primary contest is taking too long. Okay. Now there is a winning endorsement. Sheesh.

Clinton picks up a CT superdelegate.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

Comments closed

< CBS/NYTimes Poll: Something for Both Candidates | The Problem With Joe Andrew's Argument Is . . . >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    An Endorsement Not On The Merits | 233 comments (233 topical)
    Ridiculous. (5.00 / 10) (#1)
    by MaryGM on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:16:45 AM EST
    As a Clinton supporter, I'd even say that if the positions were switched.  You wanna see trouble, Mr. Andrew?  Trouble will be the superdelegates shutting this thing down early.  Voters won't take kindly.  They now expect their votes to be heard as every other state's have been.  Taking that away will ensure resentment toward the party as a whole, not just A or B candidate's nomination.

    independently speaking (5.00 / 7) (#73)
    by kimsaw on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:53:41 AM EST
    The Democrats have lost their collective minds. How stupid is stupid?  Do these pols and operatives actually know how stupid they look to voters like me when they do stuff like this. Shutting the process down should outrage every Democrat and every voter. They don't even like to play by their own rules. If they think their doing Obama any favors they are mistaken. They are hardening the Clinton constituency.  The Dems political judgment is sorely lacking. They are drowning their own party. The movement for voters will be to register to independents, the two party system is dying before our eyes. If it weren't for Clinton, Nader would almost look good.


    [ Parent ]
    probably - DNC phones are ringing!! (none / 0) (#89)
    by Josey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:59:23 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What is even weirder (5.00 / 5) (#121)
    by BernieO on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:16:36 AM EST
    are these delegates that are declaring for or switchin to Obama just as serious doubts about his electability have been raised and his poll numbers are slipping. What are these fools thinking? They should all sit back and see how this plays out for at least several weeks. The Rezko trial is not even over and there is a good possibility that that could hurt Obama, too. What is the big rush? I am really losing faith in the leaders of the party. They seem to be completely out of touch with the public.

    [ Parent ]
    It's the Raft of the Medusa. (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Salo on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:34:46 AM EST
    Famous ship wreck.  Cannibalism and murder.

    [ Parent ]
    Finally, an explanation that makes sense (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by rnibs on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:02:59 AM EST
    Thanks for the graphic idea of the raft of Medusa.  It so accurately describes the DNC insiders these days.  

    If they want to know what's happening, they should look at what voters are saying, and the voters are saying they want Hillary.  But these guys think they're the smartest guys in the room, and they'll still be thinking that even after we lose in Nov.

    [ Parent ]

    Some day, (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by mm on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:52:52 AM EST
    hopefully in the not too distant future I hope we'll learn just what the he** happened this election with the Democratic nomination.  I think there's a real story here that party insiders and reporters know but are not telling yet.  

    It seems to me that these people are executing a plan that had been hatched a long time ago.  This plan anticipated that Clinton would have been driven out by now. They are, however, unable to react and reassess their plan in response to changing circumstances and events.  It's like an army that has picked out a route to march down and gradually a very steep cliff appears in the distance. Yet they refuse to change course and continue their march straight over the cliff.

    They're doing what they've always planned to do, but are finding it harder and harder to justify with a logical choherent explanation respectful to half the party.

    This explanation from Mr. Andrew is so nonsensical it's insulting.

    [ Parent ]

    Simple Explanation (3.00 / 1) (#158)
    by daryl herbert on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:34:41 AM EST
    They think Sen. Obama is to the left of Sen. Clinton, and they want to vote for the purer candidate.  They don't like the idea of a more practical candidate using her normalness against a more liberal candidate.

    Nevermind that Sen. Clinton has, for example, a more sweeping healthcare plan.  They feel like her personality is less left-wing, or something.  For one thing, she doesn't have a far left freak show taking place on her campaign staff and close advisers.

    Just about everything that Barack Obama is going to do between now and August that makes him less electable in the GE is going to endear him in the eyes of the undecided superdelegates.  That's the obstacle Sen. Clinton has to overcome.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm sorry, but (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:46:56 AM EST
    this is nonsense.  The Dem. Party and the overwhelming majority of its elected representatives are determined centrists who are terrified of the real left.  They're even terrified of the word "liberal."  This isn't about ideology.  Both Clinton and Obama are slightly to the left of center, which is just where the party wants its candidates.

    And there's no "far left freak show" in Obama's campaign and close advisers.  If there were, I'd probably be supporting him instead of Clinton. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    You Posted..... (3.00 / 1) (#48)
    by HsLdyAngl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:27:41 AM EST
    "Voters won't take kindly.  They now expect their votes to be heard as every other state's have been."

    Did you care what the voters thought when Clinton came into the primary race with 100 super delegates already endorsing her, even before a vote was cast?

    Why didn't these super delegates wait until the primaries got underway before endorsing her?  At least the super delegates, who are endorsing now, have heard the voices of a MAJORITY of voters, unlike the super delegates who declared for Hillary before the race began.

    My hunch is that now any super delegate, who comes out for Hillary, is approved on TL and when one comes out for Obama, they are rushing to judgment.

    Thank you!

    [ Parent ]

    Those initial superdelegates (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Benjamin3 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:39:39 AM EST
    can change their endorsement at any time during the process.

    If Hillary's momentum continues, there will soon be a tipping point and SD's will have to decide if they really want to win the White House this year or not.

    [ Parent ]

    I "hope" so. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by DJ on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:43:25 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    n/t (none / 0) (#155)
    by Lil on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:33:13 AM EST
    I have seen this a lot lately. I sheepishly ask, what does that mean?

    [ Parent ]
    no text inside the message (none / 0) (#176)
    by DJ on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:39:58 AM EST
    subject line only

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you n/t (none / 0) (#186)
    by Lil on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:46:34 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    My pleasure (none / 0) (#230)
    by DJ on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:10:18 AM EST
    But I still don't know what a troll is.

    [ Parent ]
    Those 100 SDs (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by kayla on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:45:27 AM EST
    didn't try to encourage Iowa or any other state from voting.  If they had said, "Look.  We shouldn't see what the voters think.  Instead, we should all rally behind Hillary because lengthening the process will destroy the party." then you'd have a point.

    [ Parent ]
    Not "encourage" (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by kayla on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:46:38 AM EST
    ...discourage.

    [ Parent ]
    Nobody has (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:01:53 AM EST
    ever said anything like that here.  You need to stop making false accusations.

    [ Parent ]
    so Clinton should be (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by kimsaw on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:03:59 AM EST
    criticized for getting support and trying to prepare for the nominating process? What's your point? This is not about an Obama endorsement. It's about stopping a legitimate process and telling voters that their opinions don't mean a heck of a lot to the elitist in the party. The DNC's overt message to the voters is the equivalent of Obama's covert itch to Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    Did those 100 supers say "Since we've picked (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:07:05 AM EST
    Hillary, we want the primary voting cancelled because we know what's good for the Party? We know that things can get heated and we don't want to help the Repub nominee?" It's not who the endorsement is for, it's the attitude that he knows what's best. It's arrogant and harmful because it not only doesn't promote unity, it furthers the divide. He should have just praised Obama and left it at that. That's what an endorsement is supposed to be about.

    [ Parent ]
    Well he did praise (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by Benjamin3 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:23:52 AM EST
    Obama's handling of the Jeremiah Wright situation - which is laughable.  Makes me wonder if some of these SD's even know what's been going on in this campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    If they say it often enough (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:28:27 AM EST
    won't it be true? Won't it be?  Won't it be?

    'Leave Obama aloooone' campaign is now official. sad.

    [ Parent ]

    I think of back room deals (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Leisa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:58:02 AM EST
    when I consider this.  

    "I am convinced that the primary process has devolved to the point that it's now bad for the Democratic Party," Andrew said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

    He is repeating one of the Obama campaign arguments.

    All of the SD's are hearing from both camps on a regular basis.  When Obama gets a SD to switch his/her endorsement to him from Hillary, it shores him up and tarnishes her some.  It's like a power punch delivered by a henchman.

    I think that this whole process reeks of back room deals and good ole boy politics.  I am ashamed for my party.  To me, this process has NOT been democratic.

    [ Parent ]

    Your kind of statement HsLdyAngl (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by felizarte on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:46:40 AM EST
    Is one of the reasons I WILL NEVER, NEVER, VOTE OBAMA.  At every turn, supporters like you have come here and derided with flawed rationale, those who even express any kind of support for Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    What does that have to do with Obama? (none / 0) (#213)
    by independent voter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:59:38 AM EST
    I hear this sentiment a lot. If I were deciding whether or not to support Clinton in the GE (should she become the nominee) based on her supporters, I most assuredly would NOT. However, getting this country's hand levers out of the control of right wing nut jobs is much more important to me than rude, dismissive supporters of either candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    The fruit of identity politics (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Jim J on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:18:12 AM EST
    Clearly the party leadership and membership are too afraid of alienating black voters to try and win in November. Their seats are more important to them than the White House.

    We are betrayed. It had to happen sooner or later.

    Also the youth vote (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by stillife on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:44:24 AM EST
    The party leadership thinks an influx of new voters will energize the party - but will it make up for the older, blue-collar voters who stay home or vote for McCain in November?

    [ Parent ]
    To answer your question, no it will not (5.00 / 8) (#51)
    by boredmpa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:32:30 AM EST
    There's a very good reason why Social Security is eventually going to pay out more than it takes in, and why healthcare costs are predicted to get much higher (especially the gov't portion).

    Boomers, retiring or retired.  And every person in congress should know that (especially considering all the GAO and gov't concerns about the aging population's impact on services and federal mgmt).  

    Our nation's demographics are going to be tilted for quite a while toward older americans.  So the youth vote will not make up for losing older, blue collar voters in this or any coming election.  It may help the union membership/support, it may help some folks in their districts, but overall I think pandering to the youth vote will significantly damage the party and not just for this election--especially if we lose.


    [ Parent ]

    Despite Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Benjamin3 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:41:33 AM EST
    appeal to youthful voters, turnout in OH/TX/PA was not up.  It was pretty much right down the middle.  In a GE, I have no doubt that Hillary would win the youth vote against 71-year old Teflon John.

    [ Parent ]
    Hey, compared to 71-year-old Teflon John (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by stillife on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:14:05 AM EST
    I'm the youth vote - and I'm 53!

    [ Parent ]
    Their seats should be important to US as well... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Addison on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:54:19 AM EST
    ...since they're there and not the other side, and presumably we'd like to keep it that way. His endorsement is silly, but sillier still is acting like elected officials' concern over their seats -- specifically as regards coattails and demographics -- is something negative. This "we are betrayed" stuff is kind of melodramatic.

    I'm not sure if it behooves us, intellectually or politically, to take up the anti-identity politics stick from the GOP, as you have done. Not that "identity politics" is good, just that it is a way to look at certain issues in a perjorative frame, and is almost always used to summarily dismiss concerns of people with a stated identity. Not what I think we want.

    Now, of course, this guy said he's switching to end the fight, not necessarily to get better coattails or defend identity politics or whatever. But your comment presumed something and I'm talking about that.

    [ Parent ]

    This is not an elected official (5.00 / 2) (#228)
    by Cream City on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:09:00 AM EST
    this is one who survived by appointment -- and now is not really in Indiana but is a Washington lawyer, who will survive by largesse from his connections (which were given to him by the Clintons).

    This guy wanted to get elected governor but wussed out.  Google is your friend, so defend elected officials, with their reasons, when they apply.  This is a far more crass and mercenary case.

    [ Parent ]

    Do they even consider (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Benjamin3 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:01:47 AM EST
    the Latino vote?  A recent poll within the Hispanic community showed McCain beating Obama 56-44%, and Hillary beating McCain 76-24%.  If Obama is the nominee, he would actually have to spend time and resources to keep California from turning Red.

    [ Parent ]
    And there are more (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by BernieO on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:19:58 AM EST
    Hispanics than African Americans in the country now so it is stupid to ignore them.

    [ Parent ]
    Do You Have (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by The Maven on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:38:00 AM EST
    a link for that poll?  I've had several friends wonder about how each candidate would fare against McCain among Hispanic/Latino voters, and I'd love to have something to point them to.  All I've seen are exit poll numbers for some states with large Hispanic/Latino populations.

    [ Parent ]
    What a dope! (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:20:03 AM EST


    Have you ever heard of ... (none / 0) (#171)
    by Salo on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:38:48 AM EST
    ...The Raft of the Medusa?

    [ Parent ]
    This is annoying (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by ajain on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:23:20 AM EST
    Why do superdelegates do silly things like this?
    I don't know how much influence he has but doesn't he think that Clinton supporters will not take kindly to this?
    I think it will influence undecideds though.

    I sense (5.00 / 11) (#5)
    by sas on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:25:17 AM EST
    that the Democratic powerbrokers (Pelosi, Dean especially) want to give this thing to Obama so badly, that they are putting pressure on super D's to shut this process down, even though Obama's support is falling everywhere.

    If Clinton continues to win primaries and closes the gap in places where it isn't supposed to be close (like NC) they will be forced to actually make a decision.  This will be especially exacerbated if she wins the popular vote with Florida (Michigan not so much, but a little).

    Also, I firmly believe they want Obama because they do not want to lose black support.  However, they are seriously ignoring the outrage many women will feel at "their' candidate being undermined by her own party.

    Women I know will either not vote, or vote for McCain (for me it's a Hillary write in).  Maybe the party leaders believe women will forgive, that there will be healing.  Baloney.  They are messing with dynamite.

    Not to mention (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by 0 politico on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:31:54 AM EST
    moderates who find a certain lack of experience, associations, baggage, and nasty tactics from a so called "Chamge" candidate to be a bit much to stomach.

    Or veterans who find a certain candidate to be lacking a sense of duty (i.e., failure to actually chair a sub committee that could affect the troops in Afghanistan) to be distasteful.

    [ Parent ]

    They don't care about women because (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Jim J on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:22:03 AM EST
    they will have kept their seats this fall with increased black turnout. Four years is four years, and they'll deal with that election then.

    [ Parent ]
    ORLY? (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by madamab on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:26:24 AM EST
    We'll see.

    Women are more than 50% of the U.S. population.

    AA's are what, 18%?

    Doesn't seem too smart to me.

    [ Parent ]

    you do realize (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:33:39 AM EST
    there are women voting for Obama right?

    and that only 30% of HRC supporters say they wont vote for Obama, so actually MOST women supporters of Hillary have already said they have no problem voting for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    You do realize that 30% of 60% (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by Cream City on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:13:10 AM EST
    of Dem voters this year, as women have been, could be a problem for the party if Obama is the nominee?

    [ Parent ]
    I (none / 0) (#62)
    by sas on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:43:38 AM EST
    guess you think 30% is minimal.

    [ Parent ]
    The last number I saw (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by BernieO on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:23:59 AM EST
    was AA at 13% of the population.
    Hispanics are now at 15%. I am not sure what percentage are citizens.

    [ Parent ]
    AND...more than 1/2 of the AAs (5.00 / 1) (#238)
    by oldpro on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:05:51 PM EST
    are women as well...

    [ Parent ]
    But at least (2.00 / 1) (#49)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:29:43 AM EST
    you guys aren't making this an identity issue.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by madamab on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:43:02 AM EST
    It's not I who have made this an identity issue.

    The SD's think Obama's voters are more important than HRC's, according to the way some see it. I'm just saying it's not a very smart strategy.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by sas on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:45:12 AM EST
    that is also given the fact that I think he is neither ready nor qualified to be POTUS.

    [ Parent ]
    Right... (2.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Addison on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:56:32 AM EST
    ...how did this become a black versus woman issue? I think the two to three instances of that weird mutation in the conversation can be traced to Jim J.

    [ Parent ]
    Eleanor A... (none / 0) (#190)
    by Addison on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:47:56 AM EST
    ...why on Earth have you 1-rated me for the above?

    [ Parent ]
    you obviously said... (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by white n az on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:01:05 AM EST
    something negative about Obama...welcome to the club

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (3.00 / 1) (#225)
    by Addison on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:04:59 AM EST
    Firstly, when I write negative things about Obama or his supporters here I always get uprated. I had TU status (at least I could see hidden comments) up until 2 nights ago. Saying something negative about Obama, here, is rewarded, not punished.

    I was expressing confusion that the conversation had turned into a "black versus women" argument, and noting that one individual was largely responsible for that turn.

    Nothing about Obama (whom I support).

    Nothing about Clinton.

    It's inexplicable.

    [ Parent ]

    Women (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by DJ on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:47:52 AM EST
    in this election might not be as vocal as the AA community.  But our voices are heard at the voting booth. Same for the independents .  After IND and NC we will know ..IMO

    [ Parent ]
    Not to mention (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Benjamin3 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:52:26 AM EST
    working class, "lunch bucket" Democrats, who probably feel (with good reason) that the Democratic Party doesn't want them and feels like they don't even need them.  This is NOT a winning strategy.  These voters will vote for McCain or just stay home.

    [ Parent ]
    yes (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by sas on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:56:23 AM EST
    you are right

    [ Parent ]
    Well Axelrod Said That They Do Not Vote (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:31:17 AM EST
    for Dems anyway. IOW no big deal if Obama can't get their vote.
    If that statement were true, why is Hillary getting their votes?

    Can't believe how many demographic groups that Obama's campaign and his supporters have insulted or ignored. No wonder there is a growing number of voters that will not vote for Obama in November.

    [ Parent ]

    I thought that was the dumbest statement (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:45:40 AM EST
    I would hear this primary season. Joe Andrew's endorsement may have taken the top spot now.

    [ Parent ]
    It Was Particurly Stupid Because It Came Soon (5.00 / 2) (#234)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:14:55 AM EST
    after Obama's put down of small town white voters in SF.

    Also, all these calls to stop the voting process are IMO counterproductive and harmful to actually uniting the party behind one candidate. There is already strong resistance among demographics of the Dem base to voting for Obama if he is the nominee. IMO these calls only harden that resistance and will make it harder to unite the party. Never a good idea to tell people, especially Dems, that their votes do not matter or give them the impression that party manipulation decided the outcome.

    I've felt for some time that the party will nominate Obama regardless of the outcome in November. They have thoroughly  bought into the threats that the party will lose the AA community if Obama is not the nominee. They would be smarter to let this process play out and then give it to Obama. That way many Dems would not notice what was going on. The more Dems pols call for the process to stop, the more Dem voters will notice.

    [ Parent ]

    Shutting it down (5.00 / 7) (#86)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:58:06 AM EST
    is the move they make right before every vote.  Dean did it before Penn.

    It's the reason I resigned as a Democrat.  I'm now Independent.

    It's completely offensive to me on all levels.  This race has aroused my old sense of unfair treatment of women in a way I never imagined.

    [ Parent ]

    me too (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by DJ on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:46:47 AM EST
    I cannot believe how strong my feelings have become.  And the more they push to get her out the firmer my resolve.

    [ Parent ]
    If SD's try to shut down (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by Benjamin3 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:06:42 AM EST
    this process before FL/MI are settled, the Democrats can forget both of those states in the Fall.  The Democrats in these two battleground states are passionate and want their votes to count in this process.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think (4.50 / 2) (#64)
    by Benjamin3 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:45:12 AM EST
    Obama's AA support is not as hardened as people think.  There is evidence that he's bleeding some AA support after he threw Wright under the bus.  AA's will leave him if they feel their votes have been taken for granted.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you kidding?? (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:53:37 AM EST
    Obama's been taking them for granted from day one of this campaign.  They won't leave him for that.  Would you if you were in their position?  If you're a white male, you may not fully realize what it means to have for the very first time in not just your life but in all of history somebody who looks like you in a position to maybe be the next president of the United States.

    My rational mind was taken completely by surprise at the near-hysterical reaction of my emotional self when Mondale for the first time stood there with Ferraro's hand in the air in that traditional pose of a new ticket.


    [ Parent ]

    I'm waiting to see the polls (none / 0) (#90)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:59:58 AM EST
    to verify that softening in the AA group.  It will be interesting to see.

    [ Parent ]
    What evidence? (none / 0) (#93)
    by independent voter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:02:39 AM EST
    Please link to the evidence that "he's bleeding some AA support"

    [ Parent ]
    This is just a poll (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Benjamin3 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:34:01 AM EST
    but it IS evidence that something is happening.  It shows that a number of AA voters have moved from Obama into the Undecided category.

    http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/downloads/uploaded/43_InsiderAdvantage_Majority_Opinion_NC_De m_Poll_(4-30-08).pdf

    [ Parent ]

    I have to question what he says (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by MaxUS on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:25:56 AM EST
    because he suggests that McCain is picking up steam over Democrats as a result of the process when there really is no basis for that.

    McCain may be gaining ground over Obama in National polls (which if they aren't broken into Electorial strength are less than meaningless), but he is not winning in matchups against Hillary.

    I think this exposes that there's a reason behind the switch that is different from the explanation that he's given.

    The MSM says it is tearing the Dems apart (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:21:47 AM EST
    For two headline days on CNN & Yahoo, that was the story. That the fighting between sides was giving McCain a edge. So this is his excuse?

    [ Parent ]
    One can't (4.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Benjamin3 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:56:13 AM EST
    pay much attention to National polls, when the Democratic primaries are still being hotly contested.

    For example, if an Obama supporter right now receives the McCain-Clinton polling question, they will probably hit the button for McCain just to help their candidate.  This works the same for Hillary supporters.  This artificially inflates McCain's numbers.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary is also winning (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:05:26 AM EST
    the electoral vote matchups.  Obama ISN'T.

    http://www.electoral-vote.com

    [ Parent ]

    For what's it's worth (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Benjamin3 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:10:48 AM EST
    in the new Fox News poll, Democrats feel Hillary has a better chance to beat McCain by 48-38%

    [ Parent ]
    What's weird, (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by madamab on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:38:08 AM EST
    although I don't believe Fox about anything, is that I think they are genuinely taking the pulse of Democrats here.

    Just so they know who to target with their oppo research, of course, but still!

    [ Parent ]

    good point (none / 0) (#94)
    by Josey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:03:00 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by Steve M on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:28:36 AM EST
    I propose a new term: stupordelegate.

    When I heard this on the radio this morning (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ruffian on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:02:28 AM EST
    I came up with stupiddelegate, but yours is better.

    I really hope this idiot and his letter cause a backlash.

    [ Parent ]

    Deja vu? (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by ig on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:29:43 AM EST

    The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

    There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot...

    "Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?" Askia said. "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?" link

    one of many reasons (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by DJ on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:40:43 AM EST
    I can not bring myself to vote for the guy

    [ Parent ]
    sooooo (1.00 / 2) (#11)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:31:29 AM EST
    they BOTH get endorsements today but Obama is a bad guy for getting an unsolicited endorsement?

    According to the AP, the Obama campaign did not reach out to Andrew, who instead shifted his allegiance after having been impressed by Obama's handling of the Jeremiah Wright situation in recent days and Obama's "principled stand" (the AP's words, not mine) in opposition to a temporary curtailment of the federal gasoline tax.


    [ Parent ]
    nooooo (5.00 / 9) (#16)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:42:50 AM EST
    Obama isn't a bad guy for getting another SD. The SD is an idiot for the reasons he gave for switching.

    The PEOPLE of this country want their votes to be heard, counted and the chance to cast them. This clown evidently doesn't care about that. And that makes him the bad guy.

    Actually the longer this goes on it appears the less relevent that McCain becomes. He isn't getting much press and that is oxygen to a politician.

    [ Parent ]

    and how about that claire mccaskill? (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by Kensdad on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:50:23 AM EST
    i'll never forget her coming on national television and telling the world over and over that her 18 yr old daughter told her to endorse obama or she'll never speak to her again...

    what a fool...  this is the basis for endorsing the candidate?

    i'll never have any respect for mccaskill again.

    i love my teenagers, too, but that's shameful, and for a U.S. senator no less...

    [ Parent ]

    It gives women a bad name. (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by Fabian on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:45:53 AM EST
    Caving on something like what my kid wears to the dance is one thing, but caving in on my own personal, very private vote because my teenager is threatening a tantrum?  I think it's pathetic.

    Good thing I belong to the Cult of Issues and Substance and not the Cult of Whining and Bullying.

    [ Parent ]

    The truth does not matter to you (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:50:32 AM EST
    This post is about Andrew, not Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    why are you replying to me (none / 0) (#30)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:01:08 AM EST
    he makes a post about Obama from way back I reply.
    and you are telling me I am off topic? yet the very topic I am comment I am replying too? nothing?

    yeah ok.

    [ Parent ]

    I did not say you were off topic (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:20:18 AM EST
    Indeed, you will know you are off topic when I delete your posts. I said the triuth does not matter to you.

    I stick by that statement.

    [ Parent ]

    Joe Andrew (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:57:38 AM EST
    was a blip on the screen of DNC leadership, having achieved about .0000000001% what McAuliffe did as chair. I don't see how this is a big deal at all, but as usual, the Obamanation is ready to claim victory after the slightest hiccough.

    [ Parent ]
    It just seems like Dean and Co. (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by ig on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:06:41 AM EST
    would rather lose the GE just to get rid of Hillary.

    I think its a concern that PAC funds can be given to SDs. It is like buying an election, and the reason for the initial post.

    [ Parent ]

    What a dweeb (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:30:08 AM EST
    Impressed by Obama's principled stand against a gas tax holiday? This guy really does want to lose in November. I think some Dems are locked into the loser mentality.

    And if the extended primary is causing his angst I expect him to switch right back after June 3rd. The source of his discomfort  will be gone. The primaries will be over and Hillary will be able to win it.

    principled stand on gas tax? (5.00 / 5) (#126)
    by kimsaw on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:19:23 AM EST
    didn't he vote for a gas tax holiday in Illinois 3 times as reported by the AP. So now he's standing on principle and telling the truth, well at least part of anyways, he was for it before he was against it.  

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe Andrew should check his facts (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:21:24 AM EST
    Obama wasn't always opposed to gas tax holidays - only when it's politically expedient

    LINK

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by standingup on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:36:17 AM EST
    Andrew's endorsement is for all the wrong reasons but it is already getting positive play in the press as big because it is evidence of Obama putting Wright behind him.  

    The press is already (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:04:12 AM EST
    spinning full-time to fix this for Obama, with headlines like "Wright has hurt Obama - but HOW MUCH?"  with insinuation that people shouldn't be worried about Obama's proven association with crackpots.  Personally, one reason I've been pro-Hill all along is that we know the type of folks with which she'll staff the White House and put into government jobs - Maggie Williams, etc. - not folks who think praise for Louis Farrakhan is a good way to solve the nation's problems.

    Of course BO himself is trying desperately to change the subject, but given that his judgment is what's on trial here, I'm not sure how successful a tactic that'll be.

    [ Parent ]

    "Rev. Wright" was on Conan last night (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Josey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:43:18 AM EST
    Perhaps his becoming a cartoon character will help to diffuse the issue?


    [ Parent ]
    I was wondering if I was just (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by bslev22 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:38:58 AM EST
    being petty this morning when I had the same reaction that BTD apparently had to Mr. Andrews' endoresemnt.  I am hardly a political strategist, but I do think that somebody other than HRC might make some political hay out of this.  Imagine Bill Clinton saying something like:

    "Yea, Joe Andrew's decision to abandon Hillary in light of our past relationship sure does hurt.  But friends that's Washington.  I understand what motivates Joe and other folks in DC.  But look what he says about you voters in NC and Indiana, and your fellow Americans in KY, and WV, and right on through Puerto Rico.  My old buddy Joe switches sides, OK, his choice: but now he says you voters just holding things up?  The process is taking too long he says.  Well, my friends, the process is the democratic process, and my old buddy Joe hurt me and hurt Hillary, but what does he have against democracy?  Hey, Joe, let the people vote!"

    Just a two-bit poster here, but if this stuff sells then sell it!


    I hope they go that route (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by ruffian on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:43:22 AM EST
    Time to take this on front and center.

    [ Parent ]
    love it! (none / 0) (#133)
    by kimsaw on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:21:10 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Place holder president (5.00 / 9) (#17)
    by kateNC on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:43:40 AM EST
    My take on super delegates from the halls of Congress is that they regard Obama as a kind of place holder while they bring power back to Congress from the executive branch.

    He probably won't be a strong or dynamic president demanding much of them unlike Hillary who would run them ragged from day one. So, they can scurry around building personal power bases and working on their own agendas.

    I want power to return to the Congress but I also want Hillary up there pushing them to get things done for the country, not for themselves.

    Can you figure out any other reason that seasoned lawmakers would want a president which such a lack of experience on the national stage as Obama? That's a serious question BTW.

    Bingo! (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:55:44 AM EST
    I figured that out awhile ago, too.  A president in their pocket.

    [ Parent ]
    double Bingo! (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by Josey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:08:41 AM EST
    The DC establishment and elites support Obama.
    If they really wanted to "change Washington" they could have done it a long time ago.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, a good portion (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Benjamin3 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:15:49 AM EST
    of Obama's recent success with "elected" SD's is his 4-1 advantage in PAC money, which he is using to line their pockets.

    I've been hopeful though that we would eventually reach a tipping point, and winning in the Fall would become more important than money.

    [ Parent ]

    "Clinton will get things done" (1.00 / 2) (#191)
    by diogenes on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:48:42 AM EST
    Just like Bill Clinton did in 1993-1994?  No wonder the Democratic Congresspeople don't want more years under the Clintons.

    [ Parent ]
    come on everybody! let's lose!!! (5.00 / 9) (#19)
    by Kensdad on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:47:04 AM EST
    why rush for obama now?  what happens if he loses indiana convincingly and it's a tight race in NC?  or even worse, what happens if hillary wins NC???  it will be a sure sign that voters are having buyer's remorse on obama...  should the party and the superdelegates still charge ahead with the obama coronation (uh, sorry, nomination...)?  only if they want to lose -- big time -- in november.

    people have been calling superdelegates undemocratic and lots of other things, but they were created for solely this purpose.  two candidates are in a dead heat.  the first won a lot of early primary victories, but suddenly the storyline has changed and he becomes less electable in the GE...  now the second candidate comes storming back (in the big states, the blue states, and the states that any dem has to win in november)...  the superdelegates are supposed to pick the most electable candidate, not stick their thumb in the eye of the voters and say, "end it now, because it's too divisive"...  

    this is just another sad example of how the democrats are trying with every ounce of their being to steal defeat from the jaws of victory...  (and denying the true will of the people as defined by the popular vote -- yes, including those DNC-declared-non-people in MI and FL)...  if obama is the nominee the dems will have a loss of historic proportion, but at least we'll still have the congress as weak-kneed as they are...

    WWTSBQ (5.00 / 11) (#20)
    by stillife on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:49:14 AM EST
    That's essentially the rationale for this endorsement.  With Hillary's recent uptick in the polls, it looks like she'll win IN, NC will be a close race and she's the more formidable candidate against McCain in November.

    Whenever things are looking good for Hillary, the cries for her to drop out increase.  

    What an (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Andy08 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:49:44 AM EST
    empty explanantion for a switch; I'd say it is devoid of any honesty. BTD is right; Andrews is switching b/c shutting down the democratic process "is good for America"...uh? Didn't know democracy was bad for America...Dishonest alright.

    I had the same reaction (5.00 / 9) (#26)
    by kempis on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:53:37 AM EST
    Andrew evidently believes that there is no way Clinton can emerge the nominee, that structural lead in delegates Obama has being the clincher.

    If that's true, if the DNC chooses to annoint Obama despite some serious electability issues, then that's pitiful. If Andrew's attitude is typical, no wonder the Dems have such a hard time winning elections. And if they nominate Obama, they'd better be prepared to have an even harder time as the moderates and working-class Dems go back to the GOP because of its new faux-moderate standard-bearer, John McCain.

    I'm seriously worried that the Democratic nomination is a disaster in the making, but unlike Andrew, I don't see the long contest as disastrous  to the party. Instead, I think the disaster will come from handing the nomination to a guy who absolutely cannot win--all because they foolishly think running Obama is going to improve the party's brand with young voters. Maybe so, but surely not all young voters. There are working class young voters, too.

    And furthermore if the DNC woos the wine drinkers and runs off the beer-drinkers they're only back to where they were before 2006: winless and clueless. They're "champions of the working class" but they can't resist running candidates who appeal largely to elites. The DNC's Mt. Rushmore is Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale, Obama.  

    People like Andrew are so wrong in so many ways that it's scary to think that these are the DNC's "pros."

    What a strange year...... (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by kc on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:54:26 AM EST
    we used to make a big deal out of people voting against their own self-interest (re:What's the Matter with Kansas) and now we see the same thing with our super delegates.

    Put me down as another that plans on writing in Hillary. Also, my daughters (in their 30's and yes, with degrees)also will write her in-unprompted by me.

    It is in their self interest (none / 0) (#200)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:53:01 AM EST
    to vote for the person who is bringing in the money.  If dems stay loyal, all they need is money to keep themselves in office.  I question whether the money will trickle down.  I guess they are relying on Obama's machine to outpace the Clinton machine.

    [ Parent ]
    Gee, a call from Howard Dean? (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:54:41 AM EST
    Sad to say for me, but I had never heard of this guy and he was DNC Chairman for >2 years? Must be those few years when I was so disgusted with politics and Bush before Dean came along. I feel like this is so 2000 again with the election being stolen by someone I do not feel qualified to be President. Why didn't this guy suggest that Florida and Michigan be counted? Oh, he lives in Indiana.

    Well, then it's going to be funny (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:20:41 AM EST
    when Hillary wins Indiana, won't it. Talk about having egg on your face..he will have the whole chicken coop, poop and all. Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    These politicians (5.00 / 7) (#29)
    by madamab on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:00:46 AM EST
    don't seem to know how to play the game very well.

    We Democrats can govern, but we need to realize how to sell our agenda. To come out against the voters voting is just idiotic.

    If he really thinks Obama is better, let him say that. Otherwise, he needs to STFU.

    sounds to me like (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by ccpup on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:04:39 AM EST
    Andrew had decided a while ago, but is being rolled out now as a "Clinton switch" -- had he endorsed her earlier?  if not, then is it a switch? -- in order to change the subject, stop the bleeding in the Polls (with favorable coverage) and, well, change the subject ... something so desperately important to the Obama Camp now that it needs to be mentioned twice.

    This endorsement isn't a "sudden switch" as much as it is a temporary "shiny object" for the Press to focus on.  Trouble is, the more interesting story is the gradual implosion of a candidate who only 4 weeks ago looked to be a sure bet for the Nomination.  

    After a favorable mention in today's news, I suspect we'll return to the usual confusing mix of news which goes anywhere between "Hillary needs to drop out now" and "Hillary's cutting into Obama's NC lead and ahead in IN".

    Our Media has officially become Sybil!

    he endorsed her (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:05:30 AM EST
    back in November of 2007.

    [ Parent ]
    November? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Davidson on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:14:57 AM EST
    He endorsed her when she first announced she was running so it'd more likely be far earlier in 2007 (think: Jan.).

    From the link:

    ...Andrew endorsed the former first lady last year on the day she declared her candidacy for the White House.


    [ Parent ]
    ah ok (none / 0) (#39)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:18:54 AM EST
    my mistake.

    well then it was January.

    [ Parent ]