An Endorsement Not On The Merits

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.

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

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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. :-)


    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!


    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.


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

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

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

    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.

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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.


    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.

    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!

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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?

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

    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.

    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...

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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?

    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

    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.


    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

    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.

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

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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"

    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


    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?

    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.


    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.



    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%

    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!


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


    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

    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.

    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.


    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...


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.  

    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



    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.


    "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?

    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.

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

    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.

    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.


    "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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    thank you (none / 0) (#36)
    by ccpup on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:13:28 AM EST
    you'll notice the question marks I included in my thoughts about this as I literally didn't know.

    Thank you for the clarification.


    That's not even the worst (5.00 / 9) (#41)
    by DaytonDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:19:42 AM EST
    part of the letter. He makes the case that...
    "fellow superdelegates across the nation to heal the rift in our party and unite behind Barack Obama,"
    Now I'm just a low information guy, but didn't we used to unite after we voted?

    He's probably concerned (none / 0) (#120)
    by Josey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:16:35 AM EST
    about the black-white divide that has increased as the primary has progressed.
    And now there's added division - with the Black community divided over Obama/Wright.

    SD's ONLY for electability (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by pluege on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:30:53 AM EST
    if I understand the purpose of the superdelegates correctly - to prevent another McGovern type candidacy where factors in the primary process resulted in a candidate unelectable in the GE, the superdelegates only concern, i.e., their whole and ONLY purpose is to consider and judge electabiity. The primary process is not their domain, only the final results of the primary process.

    But then again, leave it to democrats to check one corrupt and easily manipulated system with another corrupt and easily manipulated system - its par for the course.

    Just false on its face (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by ruffian on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:42:00 AM EST
    "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."

    If all the SDs voted for Hillary today, it would also end the process.

    I really don't understand the game anymore.

    I don't have a problem with this (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by kayla on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:42:41 AM EST
    but maybe I'm just disillusioned.  I've lost a lot of confidence in this parties level of rationale.  If a superdelegate came out and said he's endorsing Obama because he didn't like the shade of pink Hillary wore yesterday, I wouldn't be surprised.

    Something fishy (5.00 / 8) (#71)
    by Lena on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:53:04 AM EST
    is going on here.

    His timing is horrible - her numbers are looking up, money's coming in, and it even looks like she may be even to shave off some points from Obama's NC (inevitable) victory.

    Why on earth would a SD come out now to tell his fellow SDs to shut down the contest? The voters want to be heard, not have these party operatives decide for them.

    Saying Obama is more electable is one a legitimate perspective; saying that the contest itself has to be dispensed with because it's strengthening McCain is short-sighted.

    The only thing that will really rip apart the party is ending this thing now (whether in favor of Obama OR Clinton). That means, ironically, HE is actually the one ripping apart the party. If his viewpoint prevails, half the Dems will feel cheated. And rightfully so.

    The SD equation has changed. The remaining undecided SDs should STOP endorsing ANYONE. No more endorsements for Obama or Clinton.

    (By the way, am I the only one who feels that when HRC runs against the DNC power structure AND the press, she appeals even more to the voters? This isn't necessarily a bad thing)

    Well, that's exactly the point: (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by MarkL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:55:29 AM EST
    Obama needs SD endorsements---he has nothing left to run on.

    Agree (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:05:46 AM EST
    with you there.  It's amazing that she's tightening the polls in NC.

    What's disturbing to me is that this endorsement seems to say, "Let's get this guy off the trail before he REALLY blows it."


    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by madamab on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:28:38 AM EST
    It didn't work last time, and they had six weeks to scream, whine and hand-wring.

    It's not going to work now. Despite the best? worst? efforts of the Obama supporters, the voters will be heard, INCLUDING the ones from FL and MI.


    I think if Obama loses NC (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by MarkL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:56:06 AM EST
    its' over for him.. not that I see that happening., but I can hope.
    By the way, I haven't heard anything from Wright. Is he going to speak? If not, I am 100% positive that Obama and Wright are doing some bamboozling.

    She's ahead there (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:00:28 AM EST
    in one poll, which I find absolutely amazing.  

    They (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:56:29 AM EST
    are afraid of those demographic exit polls that are going to come out post NC and IN. It's just like before PA when people were calling for Hillary to drop out.

    I was discouraged (5.00 / 7) (#72)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:53:08 AM EST
    when I read his remark and why he's for Obama.  There were a few editorials yesterday essentially saying that the SDs will go for Obama due to fear of racial tension.

    I really think this is sad.  

    That means that fear, not reason, is calling the shots.

    This endorsement underscores the fear.

    I think (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:55:09 AM EST
    that this SD is being put out there to try to take attention away from Obama's declining poll numbers. Rasmussen's new poll has Obama pretty much dropping double digits post Wright.

    I do agree that it is tepid. If this is the best Obama's campaign can do right now to change the dynamics then it's not looking good.

    There's a simple explanation... (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by white n az on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:57:50 AM EST
    check out Rasmussen's Daily Tracker today...

    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).

    May Day (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by bernarda on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:06:04 AM EST
    None of the progressive blogs I have read so far have made a reference to May Day, International Workders' Day, began in Chicago. A couple of reminders.



    I Don't Believe . . . (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Doc Rock on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:11:07 AM EST
    . . . that there is any IQ requirement to be a superdelegate and this appears to support that idea.

    Andrews (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:13:20 AM EST
    needs to read Boehlert.  This is NOT a long campaign by the standards of many other campaigns in the past.

    (In case people don't know what I'm talking about, here's a link.)

    Andrews reason for voting for Obama -- that he stood up for himself, but ONLY when he himself was being attacked by Wright, is just stupid.

    Good article (none / 0) (#173)
    by Faust on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:39:50 AM EST
    There are a couple things about this election that are different than those other elections.

    The most important one is the influence of the internet. You Tube by itself, let alone the blogosphere, has had enormous influence on this race. The mashups, Wright, Bosnia sniper, all these things have had far more influence because of the internet.

    Also, the media culture in general has changed. The Mass Media, and I include the blogosopheres in this, are not primarily about information or critical thinking. They are about entertainment and the development of simulacra. These elements have always been there. But they have only strengthened over time.


    in Mydd Jerome has a post on the same (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Serene1 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:19:16 AM EST
    in which he writes:
    "Obama on the gas tax gets fact checked by the AP. Obama voted three times for a tax holiday in 2000, joking "that he wanted signs on gas pumps telling motorists that he was responsible for lowering prices." But Obama does convince Andrews that his new stance deserves his super delegate vote in Indiana".

    There is something really fishy regarding andrews endorsement of obama. Jonathan Singeer was almost gloating that this may finally be the start of the flood of endorsements of SD's towards Obama. After the politico article this endorsement and that too for a v.superficial reason has me really worried.

    They've (5.00 / 6) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:31:11 AM EST
    been touting this kind of stuff forever. It's better than talking about Obama's faltering numbers. Personally I think he's had some of these people for a while but is now desperately pulling them out trying to change the narrative.

    I think that's probably right (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:32:06 AM EST
    The factcheck article that Jerome links to (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by JoeA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:03:31 AM EST
    actually is generally positive towards Obama's side on the issue.

    Obama has said that this episode in the State Senate showed him that this type of action makes effectively zero difference and is bad policy.


    Spineless (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by Manuel on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:19:23 AM EST
    This is another great example of the lack of leadership from the Democratic party establishment.  This is just fake unity.  They have no idea how to lead.  Do they have any guts?  Perhaps this explains why they have been so ineffective in dealing with Bush.  Dean and Pelosi must be proud.  Keep this up and I may not be able to support Obama in the fall.

    I feel cheated (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by OxyCon on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:24:22 AM EST
    I wish Andrew would have at least used the standard "Barack will bring us change by bringing us all together" shtick.

    Of course, now with all the Repub attack commercials going on all across the country, that statement is no longer operable, but it sounds so cool!

    I thought the Repubs were going to play nice with Obama. Man am I disapointed.

    You are being (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:29:53 AM EST
    so cynical.  Stop bursting my hopey-change teflon candidate bubble.

    Obama will bring us all together (none / 0) (#161)
    by Josey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:35:13 AM EST
    He'll bring the whole world together - Yes we can!
    But he can't even bring Senate Dems together over telecom immunity - supported by Rockefeller, an Obama supporter.

    Haven't had time to read all the comments (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by Anne on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:39:16 AM EST
    on this, so if I'm repeating something already posted, I apologize.

    If this guy thought Clinton would be the better president, he would be better off convincing yet-to-be-committed unpledged delegates to commit to Clinton, and making the argument to Obama-committed unpledged delegates to make the switch to Clinton - I can't be the only one who knows that "ending this process" can be accomplished by giving her enough support to garner the nomination.

    What I simply cannot comprehend - and I've been trying - is the logic of trying to push the nomination to Obama now, when the writing on the wall may be coming more into focus and might just say "Clinton."  I don't know what polls Andrews is looking at, but poll after poll after poll seems to suggest that "this process" is not working to McCain's advantage - and in fact shows that Clinton is more likely to beat McCain in many of the states we will need to take the WH.  

    The question in my mind is, do these people want to win the White House, or are they fighting some other battle, some other "election," and planning to rest - once again - on a so-called moral victory that will once again leave us at the mercy of another Republican administration?  

    If your goal is to end the process... (none / 0) (#203)
    by sweetthings on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:54:16 AM EST
    Then it probably makes sense to throw your weight behind Obama. You're correct when you say that enough Supers going for Clinton would also accomplish that goal, but Clinton has a much, much harder and longer road ahead of her than Obama does. He's ahead by almost 200 pledged delegates. He's almost tied in Supers, and despite having the worst weeks of his campaign recently, he's still picking up Supers at a much faster rate than she is.

    I'm not saying Clinton can't win. She obviously can. But it's going to be a lot harder for her to win, and having Clinton win almost certainly means going to the convention, while Obama can wrap it up before. So if all you care about is stopping the circular firing squad, then I think it's justifiable to go with Barack.

    Whether or not ending the process as quickly as possible is the sort of thing a Super should be concerned with is certainly open for debate...but then I suppose that sort of discretion is exactly why we have Supers.


    quick, stop the process before she wins (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:41:35 AM EST
    is what I hear when I see this SD dweeb. I assume this was all planned. Just lovely politics. And I assume if you look behind the curtain you will see how much it took to buy this guy.

    Hey SD's how about make your decisions either on which you think would be the better president, or based on who you think will win. I'm fine with that reasoning, no matter who you go for. But this is just the most pathetic I've seen.

    It seems like the party bosses are playing a little game over this power struggle (Obama, the empty suit they think they can control vs. Clinton who they know they can't control). And I think they're happy to play this game even if it means they loose the white house in '08. I think that will suit them fine as this is a power struggle within the party. What they don't seem to understand is that if the party looses this election, their petty politics for this power struggle will be for nothing because the party will start to fall apart. Seriously, if the dems can't win this cycle, then they no longer have a reason to exist as a national party.

    This is all they should care about (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:20:15 AM EST
    Via The Page:

    Florida: Clinton 49, McCain 41; McCain 44, Obama 43

    Ohio: Clinton 48, McCain 38; McCain 43, Obama 42

    Pennsylvania: Clinton 51, McCain 37; Obama 47, McCain 38

    Margins of error: 2.5-2.9 points

    Contact Info (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by jen on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:24:12 AM EST
    Via Taylor Marsh; h/t Ironman

    Joseph J. Andrew, Partner
    Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal
    Washington DC

    Snail Mail:
    1301 K Street, N.W.
    Suite 600, East Tower
    Washington, DC 20005-3364

    Let me disagree with you (4.00 / 2) (#42)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:19:58 AM EST
    I don't agree with that assessment, but I don't think I can diss it. I think it's refreshing that a SD essentially makes a public electibility argument.

    I also have no issue with this. (3.00 / 1) (#166)
    by sweetthings on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:37:54 AM EST
    In my mind, Supers are free to support whichever candidate they wish, for whatever reason they wish. That's the whole point of having Supers.

    Now BTD is obviously free to disagree with the endorsement, for whatever reason he wishes. But personally, I think this endorsement is as valid as any other. Probably more valid than Andrew's original endorsement, actually.


    I missed the electability argument (none / 0) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:18:57 AM EST
    It's implicit, I think (3.00 / 1) (#137)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:22:32 AM EST
    extending the process is bad, and the easiest way to end to process is by anointing obama now.

    It's the same BS the Obama blogs have been proffering for months, but it is a kind of argument.


    Um (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:39:57 AM EST
    Unless he thinks his vote is going to end this thing, I do not see the logic.

    No, I think you are wrong here.

    Moreover, it is not an Obama electability argument, it is choose any nominee electability argument.


    I think he thinks (none / 0) (#178)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:41:06 AM EST
    that he's helping to end it. But I won't speak for him.

    That is what is wrong with this system (4.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:38:54 AM EST
    The SD's are supposed to make tough decisions in the best interest of the party.  As an OB supporter I think it is the right choice, but as a HRC admirer and democrat, he is doing a major disservice to the party.  There will be enough time and money to take on John McCain even if we go through to August.  There is always a bump when a candidate is selected and a UNIFIED party that is not FORCED into a decision before every "fair playing" state is counted, is not very democratic.  Vote your conscience  and let the process go through its entirety.  Hill has picked up momentum and may be mathematically out of it, but one month or two months is an eternity for candidates to stay "alive electorally" and it is shameful that Andrews would cast a vote in this manner.

    You think so? (3.00 / 1) (#77)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:55:15 AM EST
    here will be enough time and money to take on John McCain even if we go through to August.  

    Nearly every time a party has had their nomination process last until the convention that party has lost the general election.


    In each of those years the losing party nomination was not determined until the convention.  Also notice in all those years I listed only twice was it the Republicans who started up the circular firing squad(1976 and 1948)

    I believe the last time that a party had a convention fight and won the general election was 1920 the year in which Warren Harding won, who also happened to be one of the worst Presidents in our history.


    umm... (4.00 / 4) (#115)
    by white n az on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:14:23 AM EST
    which Dems won?

    Carter 1976, Clinton 1992, 1996

    1992 went all the way to the convention.

    Get real.

    Rasmussen says 10 point swing since Monday Obama/Clinton

    Obama is tanking big time


    In 1976 (1.00 / 1) (#147)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:29:27 AM EST
    Jimmy Carter had already received enough delegates to be the nominee and was the presumptive nominee.  

    Same with Clinton in 92 and certainly in 96.  

    Floor fights mean defeats.

    TalkLefters have been saying that he's tanking since the beginning of Feb.  Yet he continues to gain more SDs.

    Daily Tracking polls are fickle and swing with every news blurb.  Don't put stock in them.


    actually... (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by white n az on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:37:00 AM EST
    Carter had enough pledged delegates in 1980 but Teddy Kennedy never withdrew and never threw his support behind Carter. There wasn't a floor fight on the nomination itself and it wasn't in doubt.

    Clinton did not have enough pledged delegates to assure his nomination in 1992

    As for fickle Daily Tracking Polls, this didn't sound very fickle to me...

    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).

    This sounds like disaster...10 point swing in just 3 days?


    Actually No (1.00 / 1) (#192)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:48:57 AM EST
    Bill won the nomination in April..

    Bill was the clear front runner now; however a grassroots strategy by Jerry Brown pulled him awfully close to the Arkansas governor.  Brown used a 1-800 number to call mass numbers of people and receive funding for his campaign.  His wins in Connecticut and Colorado made it look like he was going to take over Bill.  However a series of controversial bumps set Brown behind and Clinton won the Democratic nomination in early April after his win in New York.

    The 1980 primary and convention were fairly unique because it was the first time in a long time that the incumbent was being challenged seriously.  Carter did indeed have enough delegates but Kennedy challenged him at the convention and challenged his delegate count.   This example hardly takes away from my point.  Are you so in the bag for Hillary that you won't even concede that convention fights are historically bad for the party that has them?

    10 point swings in 3 days almost certainly are ephemeral.  But believe whatever you want.  These are opinion polls based on current events.  If a new "scandal" comes out against Clinton next week the numbers will wildly swing the other way.


    actually... (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by white n az on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:00:03 AM EST
    No, he didn't win the nomination until June with his victory in California...thanks for playing

    I think you will see the impact of Obama's tanking soon enough (Tuesday)


    Okayyy (none / 0) (#218)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:01:24 AM EST
    The convention was in July.  So you agree that there wasn't a floor fight?  

    Carter had a 600 delegate lead over Kennedy (none / 0) (#170)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:38:20 AM EST
    True (none / 0) (#195)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:50:46 AM EST
    I mistyped my point 1980.  My point is more about floor fights rather achieving delegate counts.

    Well you know (2.00 / 1) (#116)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:14:40 AM EST
    except for that the Repubs went to the convention in 1976 and still won and went to the convention in 1980 and still won and oh yeah, 1992. What guy won that one?  I think his name starts with a W....

    There you have it (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:26:08 AM EST
    John McCain is not as strong a candidate as we think.  His vulnerability is simple, too much like Bush and 28% approval rating says it all.  The dems will paint him as Bush lite in all advtsg and will win, Obama or Hill, doesn't matter.  Listening to national polls before any money is spent on discrediting macs crappy platform is silly.   Reminds me of a mistake we made 4 years ago.

    Let it run its course, if Hillary overtakes him she will have momentum running into McCain, if Obama surges, he will have momentum.  No one wins with an early concession, someone will gain momentum.  

    If the dems want to press someone to do something, tell Obama to get on a flatbed truck and debate unmoderated.  If he is ready to be president, he will win convincingly and the party will have no problem jumping on his bandwagon.  

    More importantly, the HRC and BO supporters who are being immature and ridiculous need to go their therapists and let the issues take charge.  Write the MSM and tell them you could give a rats arse about lapel pins (and hillary too), write Obama and tell him to debate head to head and not cower.  

    If we really want to win we don't need concession, we need someone to stand tall and deliver on the issues, neither of which have impressed me all that much.  John Mac's policies will be eaten alive by the american public, let's make sure ours address the economy, the war, h/c, education, housing crisis (and not a bailout that causes new mortgages to get locked in at 8% creating an untenable position for anyone that wants to sell today), foreign relations, job creation, science and r&d investing, medicare/medicaid pricing, social security and the deficit.  

    It really is that simple.


    Oh another thing (1.00 / 1) (#152)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:31:52 AM EST
    Reagan had sealed up the nomination well before the convention in 1980 whereas Jimmy Carter, the incumbent, had to deal with a floor fight from Ted Kennedy.  Jimmy Carter went on to get smoked in the General Election.

    Bill Clinton was the presumptive nominee in 92 by April.  While some candidates remained he was the nominee by May.


    You really think (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:44:55 AM EST
    Carter lost in 1980 because of a floor fight at the Dem Convention - and it had nothing to do with the campaign strategies used by Reagan?

    Hand over some of whatever you're smoking, friend...it's better than this ditchweed I've got here.


    No (none / 0) (#198)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:52:31 AM EST
    But it certainly didn't help.

    I provided examples of historical note.  In some cases the floor fight was because the party was fractured(i.e. 1968, 1980).  

    But that doesn't change the fact that floor fights almost always lead to defeat.


    Really? (none / 0) (#142)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:26:29 AM EST
    The Republicans won in 1976?  Did Jimmy Carter gain the White House via coup d'etat?

    Let's look at those (none / 0) (#180)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:41:43 AM EST
    1976 - Carter v Ford, who pardoned nixon
    1980 - Carter, gas lines, hostages, a dead man could have beat Jimmy
    1972 - McGovern was sold out by his VP to Novak, do you remember that?  Do you remember the candidate for abortion and acid?
    1968 - a psychiatrists dream.  Johnson pulls out, Kennedy is killed, a racist on the ticket and Daley tear gases demonstrators, I see a lot of parallels here
    1952 - stevenson v eishenhower  A war hero who was the first candidate to use women in their messaging and took to the airwaves with women.  He also promised to get us out of Korea which was highly unpopular
    1948 - Truman, hell I cannot figure that one out other than the media wanted dewey more than truman

    Draw me some parallels here.  I cannot see any to this race, unless of course Hillary or Obama have Novak on speed dial with some salacious evil thoughts about the other  


    I haven't been (none / 0) (#193)
    by DaytonDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:49:27 AM EST
    a big fan of President Carter lately, but the 80 campaign was my first vote and I remember the polls. Before the failed hostage rescue attempt he was ahead slightly. I wish I could provide the link to a great Mike Peters political cartoon on the 80 election aftermath.

    you are correct (none / 0) (#205)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:55:00 AM EST
    But the floor fight had nothing to do with it.  He lost it completely on the hostage crisis and truthfully as much as I LOVE carter now, he was not a very good pres.  

    You can rationalize (none / 0) (#211)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:58:17 AM EST
    things whatever way you want.  Party disunity leads to problems.  It is entirely possible that in 20 years there will be someone, such as yourself, who will say "2008?  2 candidates that represented core constituencies of the Democratic Party.  In the general election blacks/women chose not to vote due to their anger over the primaries.  Clearly that is not the same".  The reasons are always clear in hindsight.

    Does that mean that the Democrats can't win if there is a floor fight?  Of course not.  The election is still the Democrats to lose.

    But a floor fight is the only way the Republicans can win in November.  


    and you can run (none / 0) (#220)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:03:23 AM EST
    from parallels.  Don't draw them and then run.  The floor fight did not cause the losses, nor did they compound them.  George Bush, one of the worst presidents in our great history beat Kerry, the "most electable" candidate.  I long for a floor fight last election.

    you want to "rationalize" the losses via the floor fights, I want to "rationalize" the losses as history has dictated it (through my version of history of course), does that make either of us right?


    No (none / 0) (#231)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:10:58 AM EST
    I'm not rationalizing anything.  I am stating an observed fact.  The last floor fight, that I am aware of, that resulted in a victory for that party was 1920.  

    If Obama had any courage (3.00 / 2) (#207)
    by Benjamin3 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:56:36 AM EST
    and really wanted to help unify the Party, he would immediately call for MI/FL to be seated . . . then fight it out fair and square through the last primary.  If, at the end, the SD's went with him and he wins, I think many Hillary supporters would be more inclined to support him.  If this process is shutdown without those voters and the voters in the remaining states having their voices heard, he will never be considered the "legitimate" nominee.

    Geez, this is the Democratic Party!  After 2000, I simply cannot believe we would allow those voters to be disenfranchised.


    He would (4.00 / 1) (#212)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:59:22 AM EST
    immediately call for a VOTE with reasonable time for both to campaign and get on both ballots and let that vote be added, not seated as the previous election results which were not to be counted because they tried to circumvent the system.

    It's too late now (5.00 / 1) (#235)
    by Benjamin3 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:15:08 AM EST
    for revotes to occur in those two states.  The Obama camp was successful in preventing that.  Other states also violated that "rule" and nothing was done to them.  And if we want to look at strict interpretation of the rules, the DNC rules called for stripping half of their delegates - yet they bent the "rules" and gave those states the death penalty.  Please don't talk to me about rules and technicalities when the sacred right to vote, of innocent people, is being denied.

    Actually, they're supposed to make their (none / 0) (#197)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:52:24 AM EST
    decisions in the best interest of winning the presidency.

    and do you (none / 0) (#208)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:57:14 AM EST
    think this is an accurate interpretation of that goal?

    Breaking: 3 more (3.00 / 1) (#114)
    by magster on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:14:11 AM EST
    Andrew cites Obama's "mettle under fire" (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by AdrianLesher on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:51:02 AM EST
    in dealing with the Wright situation as among his reasons for supporting Obama. He admires that Obama rejects Clinton's pandering on the gas tax issue. Yet BTD says "[a]pparently Andrew still thinks Hillary Clinton will be a better President."

    Sounds to me like Andrew decided that Obama has the strength and character to be a better president than Clinton.

    You ignore the part I quote (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:52:20 AM EST
    which is clearly the reason why, according to Andrew himself, that he switched.

    It there not one honest Obama supporter who will acknowldege that this is a ridiculous endorsement?


    I'm a Clinton supporter (4.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ajain on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:07:21 AM EST
    I dont think this is a particularly ridiculous endorsement simply because it is coming from a long time Clinton friend. I mean someone else could have come out to save Obama from another bad news cycle, but instead this guy did. He obviously knew what the impact would be.
    Maybe he will say something at the news conference that will be  even more disrespectful towards Clinton, because this seems to me as a vote against Clinton more than anything else.

    He did noit say anythojng disrespectful (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:19:00 AM EST
    towards Clinton. In a way, that is the problem. The endorsement is not on the merits.

    What merits? ;) n/t (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:05:45 AM EST
    Of Obama over Hillary I mean ;) n/t (none / 0) (#103)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:06:09 AM EST
    You have spent the past several months (2.00 / 1) (#65)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:45:15 AM EST
    arguing that the superdelegates can vote for whatever reason they want.  If they want to ignore pledged delegates and instead vote based on popular vote, that is fine.

    So now you have a superdelegate who has chosen to pick Obama for reasons he feels are important(i.e. party unity) and you believe his reasons have no merit?  

    How are you being any different than others who say that SDs should follow pledged delegates?


    Actually I ha ve argued (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:20:25 AM EST
    that they should follow the popular vote.

    Which is fine (none / 0) (#156)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:33:55 AM EST
    but that is simply your opinion.  Your argument has no more inherent merit than Andrews argument that party unity should take precedence.  

    For their state or overall? (none / 0) (#168)
    by Addison on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:38:06 AM EST
    Overall (none / 0) (#177)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:40:58 AM EST
    Sorry... (none / 0) (#185)
    by Addison on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:45:53 AM EST
    ...as I realize this is a digression. But why overall? I don't see the justification. Or, at least, I don't see any justification for looking at the overall popular vote versus the state in which the superdelegate is counted as an unpledged delegate. Especially with the problems/controversies inherent in tabulating a national popular vote total. It seems to make the superdelegates mere pledged delegates to a faulty, unannounced and unregulated national primary, in which many states aren't fully participant. I don't get it.

    Again, that's a digression.


    Because I (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:54:23 AM EST
    want them to ratify the will of the people, which the pledged delegate system undermines.

    Ok... (3.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Addison on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:58:11 AM EST
    ...so you have no fundamental objection to SDs voting based on their state's popular vote totals (which represent the "will of the people" just as much as a national popular vote would, and for the same exact reasons) where available, and based on some other measure -- national popular vote numbers or, perhaps, current polling averages if dramatic enough -- if the state was a caucus state and doesn't have what you feel are accurate or meaningful popular vote totals.

    Well... (4.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Addison on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:05:35 AM EST
    ...if party unity is your goal why endorse Obama? Why not Clinton? It doesn't matter to that argument which one drops out.

    So the endorsement, since it IS for Obama, boils down to an "inevitability" argument for Obama, which was not publicly stated, nor would it sound so good.


    Well I would imagine (3.00 / 1) (#118)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:16:15 AM EST
    if my primary objective was to end the race as soon as possible in order to shore up party unity I would look to support the candidate that is most likely to win the nomination.  

    Barring an absolute collapse by Obama, which I think is unlikely, the only way that Hillary can possibly win* is by holding out until the convention.  So if your primary concern is ending the race as soon as possible it would be difficult to justify supporting Clinton at this juncture.

    Things are getting worse between the two sides.  A real animus is building that will take time to heal.   If the Democrats don't decide this until August they  will be handing the White House to McCain who will have 4 months of softball questions and cocktail parties with the MSM while the 2 Dem candidates will be engaged in a death spiral where both candidates will be forced to get bloodier and bloodier.

    FTR, I personally don't think that this need to end right now.  Middle June is just fine for me.  I also don't think that Andrews did this for the sake of party unity.  I think he was in the bag for Obama for a while and he strategically outed himself.  I also believe that Obama has a few more SDs in the bag to use when necessary.

    * - By win I mean that she almost certainly will not get enough pledged delegates and publicly pledged SDs to reach the 2024 threshold.


    and Obama won't either (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Josey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:19:51 AM EST
    He probably will (1.00 / 1) (#165)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:37:11 AM EST
    Currently he has 1733 delegates.  That means he need 292 more delegates to get the nomination.  

    If he splits the remaining delegates, which seems likely, he will be at about 1900.  That means he will need about 125 or so of the remaining 300.  

    So 40% of the SDs he reaches the threshold.  


    No "healing" will make Obama electable (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by MarkL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:36:01 AM EST
    at this point.

    This is just a tossed-off, unsupported statement. (1.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Addison on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:39:52 AM EST
    Of course a certain amount of "healing" would make Obama electable. He's ahead or tied with McCain in almost every single poll. So what are you talking about? You're just saying something because you like the way it sounds.

    None of which makes endorsing solely on electability (or unity) a good idea.


    It's a statement based on 40 years of (5.00 / 5) (#181)
    by MarkL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:42:55 AM EST
    watching presidential elections.
    Obama is the worst of the worst. He embodies all the attributes which causes Democrats to lose.
    More than that, he's been listless on the stump, confusing dates and times, with no idea where he is. , imagining that Clinton is attacking him with her stump speech (she is not) as he lays into her.
    He's the least experienced, least qualified nominee in at least 100 years and McCain will rip him to shreds on the question of commanding the military. Hillary actually has strong support among the military. Obama? Don't make me laugh.

    Well at least (1.00 / 1) (#215)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:00:16 AM EST
    you don't like to engage in hyperbole.

    Either you know nothing of Presidential politics or you are so blinded by bias you can't see 5 feet in front of yourself.


    Oh, I mean Democratic candidates, if that (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by MarkL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:03:32 AM EST
    helps. Obama's resume is similar to Bush's, but thinner, on paper.

    Is Joe in office? n/t (none / 0) (#38)
    by DJ on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:16:21 AM EST

    The fact this this guy (none / 0) (#45)
    by riddlerandy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:22:58 AM EST
    was the DNC Chair under Bill Clinton adds some additional sting.

    I have a problem (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by ChrisO on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:54:31 AM EST
    with the constant refrain that it's particularly telling when someone who worked in the Clinton administration, or was a party official during that time, endorses Obama, it's an abandonment of Hillary. Clinton was the only Democratic President in the last 28 years. Every Democrat of any influence (and many with no influence at all) had some connection to the administration. It doesn't mean they were all Clinton loyalists or friends. It was the only game in town.

    I'm not saying that was your point, but I see this refrain constantly on the press. With guys like David Wilhelm, it's a legitimate point. But if everyone who somehow came into the Clinton's orbit in the 90s supported Hillary, we wouldn't even need to hold primaries. It's just more lazy shorthand on the part of the press.

    Josh Marshall, of all people, in a sudden flash of evenhandedness (which I'm sure has passed by now) even wrote a post about how Robert Reich's support of Obama shouldn't be misconstrued, because Reich was never close to the Clintons, despite being in Bill's cabinet.


    Well, and (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:17:31 AM EST
    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.


    One more thing (none / 0) (#128)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:19:36 AM EST
    Sorry for the multi-posts, didn't get much sleep last night.  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.

    Thank you (none / 0) (#87)
    by DJ on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:59:06 AM EST
    for the insight.  That never occurred to me.

    The normal rules of politics (none / 0) (#160)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:35:03 AM EST
    generally mandate that people whose careers were made by, in this case, Clinton, were a major part of the Clinton administration, etc., stay officially neutral if they're not going to endorse another major part of that administration.  Not to say the unwritten rule is always followed, but it's just generally bad form, bad politics and bad for your reputation to switch sides in a race your previous mentor has a major investment in.

    A pol generally will only do that if they think the mentor is certain to be completely out of power/influence forever, the pol him/herself expects to be out of politics in the near future, or the pol is too stupid to realize/doesn't care that he himself will lose influence/trust with other pols.

    It's just a bad idea, no matter who's involved.


    Perhaps more on the merits (none / 0) (#88)
    by po on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:59:10 AM EST
    than some would care to believe.  from later in the linked article:

    "Andrew said the Obama campaign never asked him to switch his support, but he decided to do so after watching Obama's handling of two issues in recent days. He said Obama took the principled stand in opposing a summer gas tax holiday that both Clinton and McCain supported, even though it would have been easier politically to back it. And he said he was impressed with Obama's handling of the controversy surrounding his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright."

    that particular act... (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by white n az on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:06:16 AM EST
    of disowning Reverend Wright will be seen for what it was soon enough...Some are calling it an act of courage but it was an act of cowardice.

    To go from 'I can no more disown Reverend Wright than I can disown the white grandmother who raised me' to disowning him in 5 weeks when he said nothing to justify this. It was Obama stepping on him for having the nerve to assume the public stage.

    It was a clear sign that Obama does make commitments that he will keep.


    i disagree (3.00 / 1) (#119)
    by po on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:16:17 AM EST
    i saw someone who was ticked that his pastor was calling him out on the national stage because he wouldn't go as far as the pastor wanted him to go.  courageous, i don't know about that, but I don't see it as cowardice or selling someone out.  rather, it was something that needed to be done at that moment because of what the good paster had been saying about Obama personally the days before.

    Nope, I see the action (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Serene1 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:35:18 AM EST
    as not cowardice but backstabbing. People seem to forget that Wright never forced Obama to join his church. Obama joined the church inspite of being warned by Wright initially itself that Wright's sermons were controversial.
    Obama's statement that the Wright of today is different from the Wright of yesterday and that he had never previously heard those controversial statements yada yada has to be the biggest joke.

    And in this la affaire Wright I think wright comes out head and shoulders better than his disciple.


    And (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:50:55 AM EST
    not to beat a dead horse, but a (former?) member of Trinity Church is quoted as saying:

    "What you saw is what we saw every single week," said Brenda McGadney-Douglass, an associate professor at the University of Toledo who attended Wright's Monday appearance and was baptized by him. "This is exactly the way things go in our church."


    I think there will be more out there, so I scratch my head at Super-D's coming out right now -seems bizarre how they wouldn't want to even wait a week and see how this plays out.

    They may propel him to win the battle, but he's destined to lose the war.


    Shows how high Clinton's hill is. . . (none / 0) (#99)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:05:40 AM EST
    Obama's had his worst week ever but her delegates are switching to him and not the other way around.

    Clinton's been doing well recently, but this is late in the race and she needs a near-miracle at this point.  She needs superdelegates to be switching to  her or she needs to win both states next Tuesday.

    She picked (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:06:47 AM EST
    up 3 SDs this week to his 4.  

    True, but unless Obama's delegates (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by JoeA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:29:10 AM EST
    start moving the other way then by most predictions of the way the remaining contests will go,  Hillary needs the remaining Superdelegates to go her way by 70-30 or 80-20.

    Splitting them evenly or losing them narrowly day to day is not enough.  Obviously if the IA poll in NC is right and Hillary actually manages to win the state then that would be an earthquake imho.  However from what I hear the internals on that poll sound a bit iffy.


    I agree... (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by white n az on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:32:30 AM EST
    that the poll didn't seem entirely sound.

    I think the SD's are announcing in a panic. Why?

    Because Obama is dropping like a rock (see Rasmussen today), because she has clearly made NC a close contest. She is going to beat him soundly in IN, WV, KY and get on a roll and they're trying to do anything to close it down before it becomes obvious that Obama can't win.


    Which illustrates my point. (4.00 / 1) (#136)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:22:16 AM EST
    Even in superdelegates she continues to fall further behind.  If she hopes to win, she doesn't need to finish this race running slightly behind Obama, or even slightly ahead (although that may provide her with enough juice to go to the convention).

    She needs to really turn the race around.  She got a huge assist from Reverend Wright but so far that seems to have improved her situation marginally, not conclusively.  To have a superdelegate switch away from her in the light of Obama's bad week simply shows Obama's still in the catbird seat.


    Depends on how you define "catbird" (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:28:37 AM EST
    In my world, there are a few symptoms showing all is not well in Obamaland.  One is polls showing Hillary poised to overtake BO in NC, as well as preparing to crush him in a couple of the upcoming primaries.  Another is a bunch of breathless BO supporters showing up here en masse all of a sudden, determined to show we Hillaryites the errors of our ways.

    Methinks many of you are protesting too much.


    Oh please. (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:12:55 AM EST
    Methinks many of you are protesting too much.

    Let's leave the dissent-slagging to dKos, shall we?

    Certainly all is not well in "Obamaland".  The guy's had a terrible week and Clinton's coming up.  But just coming up in the polls is not enough to turn things around for her.

    Beating Obama is Kentucky won't do it for her.  The influx of Obamabots with agita won't do it.  Winning North Carolina would go a long way towards turning things around -- but even there, I'd trust the 7 and 5 percent behind polls a heck of a lot more than the laughable 2 percent ahead poll.  7 and 5 percent behind isn't shabby -- if the movement in those polls is real and maintains its pace she could overtake Obama.

    I see a narrative developing here that if Clinton essentially runs out the clock -- tieing Obama from here on out or even picking up a few more pledged delegates, that means that she is the presumptive winner.  But that's not the case.  She needs a knockout blow.  This political betrayal from Mr. Andrews indicates that, at least in the world of super delegates, she still has a ways to go.


    One thing (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:49:50 AM EST
    is obvious.  Hillary will never turn around the PR war.  The media is in too deep for that to happen.  They took sides.  They all are into the Fox Format of taking a side and screaming.  Well, that means they are invested.  That's a given.

    But.....voters vote.

    And voters, frankly, don't really care a great deal about what some bozo on MSN says.  They are at baseball practice or cooking dinner when that stuff comes on.

    Voters make up their own minds.


    Boneheaded why not just come out and say that (none / 0) (#111)
    by Salt on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:11:56 AM EST
    as a fomer DNC offical I thank you for your 420 Million dollar contribution to our DNC shell game you stupid rubes but, now that we've milked you dry its time to move on with our planned outcome.

    Obama is a money machine for the DNC (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Josey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:31:01 AM EST
    but his main fundraising strategy is "beat the B!" - and teaching young voters that the Clinton administration was BAD for Democrats.
    So it's uncertain how much money Obama would raise without Hillary.

    True (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:54:16 AM EST
    and what's really ridiculous is that the Democratic Party somehow thinks smearing Bill Clinton will bring in new Democrats.

    Won't it instead make these young voters think that Democrats are bad? (but Obama good of course).


    The Obama as a money machine (5.00 / 2) (#221)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:03:24 AM EST
    Well if the DNC is looking at BHO as a money machine, they are looking in the wrong direction. I agree they are looking at new donors, but it is us older wiser donors who can afford to donate. I stopped giving to them and will never do again because of how they handled this election. Also, until Hillary spoke up that she needed money a while ago, I think everyone thought she had a huge war chest. Some of that money is for the GE. As soon as she says she needs money, it seems to show up quickly as we all answer her call.

    I think that what people have writen about the Powers that Be looking for a weak controllable President has a lot of truth in it. They are looking for control. What suckers. Ha.


    News Flash (none / 0) (#123)
    by po on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:18:33 AM EST
    The "planned outcome", at least until what happened on Super Tuesday, was Hillary gets the nomination.  Right now there is not a "planned outcome" because too many people have a hand in any "planning" and since they're mostly politicians with their own set of issues they ain't getting together to meet, thus the angst.

    Full text of his letter is available on dkos (none / 0) (#224)
    by Faust on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:04:38 AM EST

    I looked around for a link to this letter elsewhere. The dkos entry does not list a link, plus it has alot of annoying bolding. However, it's the only place I could find it for now.

    Andrew on Fox now (none / 0) (#227)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:06:56 AM EST
    Fox showing a clip of Andrew's announcement, Andrew is very animated and very adamant...  After NC and IN, I will be calling every Superdee I know, now is the time, lets close this process down.....

    He's on a call with the Obama campaign and as soon as he is done, he will be on the phone with Fox.