W.Va: It Counts, Deal With It

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:06:03 PM EST
Tags: West Virginia '08 (all tags)

Share This:

BTD referenced MyDD's post by Jerome on West Virginia earlier. I have more to say about it. I want to highlight his lead-in:

I'd humbly suggest, to all the Obama supporters that join us here on this blog, that if you can't stand the heat of the West Virginia primary, you stay out of the kitchen. While I'm at it, I also suggest that you refrain from accusations against West Virginians as being racist, or you'll join the other 6 previous users here, whose offensive comments were deleted on Friday, and that were themselves banned from the site. ...You don't like that? Fine, its a big wide blogosphere, go find a blog that has its head in the sand. Are the ground rules understood?

CNN just flashed a poll showing Hillary ahead with 66% of the vote. It said a big W. VA win will show that "a lot of Democrats aren't ready to get on Obama's bandwagon."

CNN says W.Va. used to be solidly Democratic until 2000 when George Bush took it. Social issues are big there. Guns are even bigger. The LA Times also says W. Va could spell trouble for Obama in November.[More...]

One other note from Jerome:

Barack Obama has planned a party to claim the nomination in Portland, based on his own campaigns measurement. He can say whatever he wants, but it's an insult to intelligence to believe it until it happens by the rules. As Howard Dean has said many times, MI and FL are going to be resolved and seated. Obama has now agreed with that position. Like it or not, the working number of delegates is 2209. There's not a rule that says if you get a plurality of the pledged delegates, you win.

The Obama campaign will declare that there's never been a candidate denied the election who had the most pledged delegates. True. But has there been a candidate denied the nomination whose had the most votes? I don't think so. But neither of those metrics matters. 2209, or whatever the number is after the resolution of MI and FL happens to be, is all that matters. Until then, we don't have a nominee.

I'm with Jerome on this one. And message to Obama supporters who comment here. Follow the site's commenting rules, don't chatter and try to dominate or hijack the discussion, don't call people racist or accuse them of not being Democrats, and don't insult either the writers here or the commenters. Don't post false information. We do not yet have a nominee. If you disagree with something you see written here, express it in civil terms. After making your point and defending it if called on it, move on.

Do not low rate comments because you disagree with the point of view. All of your comment ratings will be erased if you do that.

For the one-millionth time, TalkLeft, Big Tent Democrat and I will support the Democratic nominee against John McCain. Any Democrat is better than what the Republicans are offering. There's plenty of time. We're still in a primary race and until one candidate drops out or the votes have been cast at the Convention in August, that time has not arrived.

Comment limits: 10 a day for all commenters here less than 30 days. 20 a day for chatterers, see the comment rules.

Final note to TL readers: If you see a comment that violates the site rules or that a particular commenter is repeatedly violating the rules, send me an email. I can't read all the comments but I can read those you direct me to.

< Obama Camp Not Interested In Unity | Paying For Denial "Science" >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

W.Va: It Counts, Deal With It | 183 comments (183 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

OMIGOD....66%? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:09:06 PM EST

That's devastating.

sorry, I meant (none / 0) (#5)
by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:13:08 PM EST

she has 66% of the voters, not that she is 66% ahead. I fixed it.

[ Parent ]

We can hope!! (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by MarkL on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:19:01 PM EST

50% may be possible.

[ Parent ]

Rasmussen poll: very strange results (5.00 / 1) (#127)
by andrys on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:54:41 PM EST

In the May 10 Rasmussen Daily presential tracking poll analysis, they say:

"In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Obama holds a 48% to 43% advantage over Clinton nationally"
Then the detail-page that's linked to shows Clinton leading 48% to 43%. Was that a typo by them in the chart rather than in the analysis?
I imagine so, as they would note the huge swing in their analysis of what that chart shows.

- Andrys

[ Parent ]

: And I Thought Rasmussen Wasn't Going To (none / 0) (#180)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:08:29 PM EST

track Hillary anymore...I believe that was what was said.

[ Parent ]

Even so (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:22:08 PM EST

That's looking like Mississippi in reverse.

That's what I meant by.....Omigod.

It's a psychological blow.

[ Parent ]

: If she can keep (5.00 / 5) (#111)
by Mrwirez on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:25:06 PM EST

it close in Oregon or even win it, along with another Obama crushing defeat in KY next week. I am not so sure he has this locked up. That is why they want her out soooo bad. Her win map is starting to look like Bill Clintons 1996 GE win map.
The Democratic leaders have a MAJOR problem.
1-Florida and Michigan is still out there, which Hillary won no matter how you slice it.
2-Obama is still going to get crushed in some states. Such as WV and KY, how is that going to look for a front runner?.... (And I dare the Obama camp to use the word racist.)
3-Hillary is more electable by the states she has won
4-Hillary has more potential electoral college votes
5-Hillary polls better against McCain in swing states
If Obama comes out and says he wins on May 20th without really winning, there maybe some backlash. She is still a loved NY Senator and a former First Lady after all.

[ Parent ]

We will take 66% of the voters....that is a very (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:23:46 PM EST

good start and it may go even higher, as good things come to those who wait!! :)

[ Parent ]

Please (5.00 / 2) (#133)
by sas on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:06:46 PM EST

consider making calls for Hillary.

[ Parent ]

: I used to live in WV and I (5.00 / 2) (#178)
by FlaDemFem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:46:18 PM EST

pulled out my old datebook and called everyone I know there. And got numbers of their families from them and called them. I had to recharge my phone twice..LOL They are all pro-Hillary. She is very popular there and they just adore Bill. When he was running for President the first time, there was a joke going around about the DC types talking about the Clintons..went like this.. "I don't mind that they are from Arkansas, really I don't, but did their names have to be Hill and Billy?" They loved that joke in the hollow I lived in. I must have heard it 20 times a week during the election campaign. Bill is a bubba, just like they are. And Hillary resonates with a lot of WV women. They don't quit when the going gets tough either, they dig in and keep on going.

[ Parent ]

Yes, and she may get more... (5.00 / 13) (#33)
by andrys on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:49:27 PM EST

It turns out that Fla/Mich is being set up for a compromise in a way that intentionally will not change the numbers sufficiently to hurt Obama, as they've put it. That's the Dean/Brazile/Pelosi crowd, all of whom probably don't want to answer to a Madame President, especially this one, it would seem.

I heard a calculation on one of the msnbc shows Wednesday night (either Abrams or Matthews) which showed that if Florida and Michigan are counted as voted, then Clinton could actually lead in the popular vote IF she won WVa and Kentucky by 20 and lost Oregon, Montana and SDakota by less than 10. This is just a computation.

Rasmussen on the night of May 8 showed her leading in WVa by 40! (it went down and then went back up) and SUSA has her leading in Kentucky by 34 ! (But they were too optimistic on Indiana.) Those were the only pollers this week on either of those states.

Obama's ahead in Oregon but I've seen the polls tightening on that in the last 2 weeks.

IN THE MEANTIME!
While the mainstream and liberal rags don't give us superdelegate-names very much with current stances, here's one from May 6 (evening) which shows why superdelegate movement was stalled before North Carolina. It's been
relatively still halted (no flood) and, as tv people have said, about 90% of remaining undecided superdelegates plan to not do a thing until the end of the primaries.

= HERE's the key article It also names undecided delegates with explanations from them so it's probably good to read them but not with vitriol and they'll be read more if the notes are short.(Excerpts)
=

The Hill
By Alexander Bolton
Posted: 05/06/08 07:57 PM [ET]
Superdelegates say, we will decide
Uncommitted Democratic superdelegates in Congress overwhelmingly say they won't necessarily back the presidential candidate who wins the most primary delegates. Instead, electability will be very important in their
decision.
Of 42 lawmakers interviewed by The Hill, only four said they regarded the primary vote as decisive.
... But Pelosi's troops on Capitol Hill say they are more concerned about electability, plus each candidate's momentum heading toward the convention, and how their own constituents voted.
...But even superdelegates who say the delegate count will be decisive in their own decision-making add a caveat:
* They warn that the delegate count will be less important if the leading candidate has not also won a majority of the popular vote.* [emphasis mine]

Many more details at the link, along with interviewed superdelegates' names.

So, the hostility from Obama forces may be due to their realizing, without talking about it openly, that she still actually has a chance. And that's another reason for Obama trying to proclaim his own nomination on May 20.

And they want to do everything they can to kill the idea that he is not actually the nominee yet, including
making much to-do about Clinton's 'white' statements today (which were from an AP story talking exit-poll style about her strength with various groups) which even Keith Olbermann felt were probably misinterpreted or at the most mis-stated.

The trend is to try to find a way to seat Fla/Mich in a fair way, meaning counting their votes, but if they can't, Clinton can still make an argument about what the voters did do, re the popular vote. If her victories coming up are as huge as they seem, it will unsettle many superdelegates, especially if Obama doesn't do as well as expected in Oregon.

- Andrys

[ Parent ]

: great commentary - thank you! (5.00 / 3) (#80)
by Josey on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:34:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
: Stand Firm (none / 0) (#195)
by BackFromOhio on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:52:36 PM EST

I believe Hillary should not agree to any proposal on counting/seating the FL & MICH delegates unless fair; perhaps I'm wrong, but
I don't see how Obama, if nominated, could win
the general election without Florida & Michigan, and I believe many pro-Obama DNC types realize this.

[ Parent ]

I think what we are failing to understand (5.00 / 10) (#2)
by DJ on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:12:30 PM EST

is that Obama is running a 50 state race. And with 58 states he can afford to lose WV. Silly bloggers.

Best comment of the week! (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by MarkL on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:12:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Or a 58-state race (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Cream City on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:29:27 PM EST

per his comment yesterday. Obama is getting very tired. But when he misstates, it's okay, it seems.

[ Parent ]

: Yup (5.00 / 2) (#199)
by ineedalife on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:54:12 PM EST

If Hillary had said that it would have been a "senior moment". But since it has been all of two weeks since Obama's had a mini-vacation we really should cut him some slack, don't ya think?

[ Parent ]

66% Would Be Great....Hope It Holds (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:12:54 PM EST

As I have iterated and reiterated....this isn't over.

: It's not over. (5.00 / 2) (#143)
by pie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:19:14 PM EST

But someone better tell Time magazine.

[ Parent ]

Sounds like the Obamatons are worried (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Raven15 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:26:51 PM EST

...about defections. And they should be. They've brought it on themselves. Wonder if they'll ever realize this.

They seem to always forget (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by ChuckieTomato on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:33:18 PM EST

that supers don't vote until August

[ Parent ]

How Nice For Them....NOT. Apparently It (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:50:33 PM EST

is okie dokie for obama to change the rulz when necessary to benefit him. I despise his arrogance.

[ Parent ]

: Has anyone told him that he won't get (5.00 / 2) (#179)
by FlaDemFem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:53:07 PM EST

the nomination until the convention, if then?? If not, someone should, don't you think? If he announces himself as the candidate in May, I hope the SDs say, "Oh no, you aren't!!" and vote enmasse for Hillary. The problem with Obama is that he demands respect for himself, but fails to give it to anyone else. That doesn't work for long. Especially not in politics which is very much "tit for tat".

[ Parent ]

Perhaps their true concern (none / 0) (#194)
by BackFromOhio on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:47:12 PM EST

is to head off any more "surprises"
such as Reverend Wright.

[ Parent ]

Just a note (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:28:08 PM EST

As has been the case on many subjects, Jeralyn and I so not agree on everything. she and I believe that it makes for a more interesting site when our different perspectives are presented to our readers.

I expect you will see us both discuss the same issues in different posts and from different perspective a great deal.

well-said, BTD (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:29:57 PM EST

that's cool (5.00 / 8) (#18)
by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:36:38 PM EST

we'll just agree with whoever mirrors our own opinions and think the other person is wrong!

I do wonder what a huge win in WVA (and then KY) will do to the dynamics of this race. This late in the game, anything over 20% is a huge slap in the face. Obama couldn't break that in NC post-Wright.

I don't think this will be like the Potomac primaries, etc, wherein Obama's wins were basically ignored until the "big states" came into play. We are so down to the wire, and the scrutiny is being heightened. People are going to start looking at demographics and wonder what is going on.

As I have stated many times before, Clinton is still in this thing to win, and I am still supporting my girl.

[ Parent ]

: I Fear (none / 0) (#193)
by BackFromOhio on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:45:24 PM EST

however that if Obama wins Oregon, the media will paint it as Obama wins Oregon handily and Hillary took the small states of WVA and KY as expected.

[ Parent ]

i also commend ya'll for the timeliness (5.00 / 2) (#183)
by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:57:49 PM EST

of your diaries. when something happens i see it analyzied and put forth for consideration faster than any blog i know.

[ Parent ]

What has happened? (5.00 / 6) (#114)
by ricosuave on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:28:52 PM EST

Why is that even something that needs to be explained? It used to be OK to disagree about things among liberals and within the Democratic party. There are pro-choice and pro-life members, pro- and anti-death penalty, single-payer insurance proponents and free marketeers, etc. It is the republicans that seem to demand toe-ing the ideological purity line.

The fact that this site shows a variety of opinions is what drew me here in the first place, and the lack of support for diversity is one of the main reasons I have abandoned sites like TPM and big orange.

So please keep it up, and no need to explain or justify your differences.

[ Parent ]

: Why should we be ok with... (none / 0) (#147)
by Thanin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:35:41 PM EST

anti choice members? I dont think most women here are ok with that.

[ Parent ]

What Do You Think About Obama Declaring (none / 0) (#169)
by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:22:44 PM EST

himself the winner on May 20th?

[ Parent ]

: Well, in England (none / 0) (#182)
by aquarian on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:43:51 PM EST

The London Times says it best:
He is planning to declare a victory of sorts on May 20.
Too bad I have to go overseas to get an honest take of U.S. politics.

[ Parent ]

26% undecided voters (5.00 / 4) (#15)
by nycstray on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:31:36 PM EST

Make phone calls! We want to keep the gap :)

http://tools.hillaryclinton.com/calling/

I am excited and re-energized (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by bjorn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:38:37 PM EST

after feeling like all was lost. Go Clinton! And than you to all the people here who have raised my spirits by staying focused and agreeing to keep going and keep fighting until the magic number is reached by someone.

There really is much to this primary. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by wurman on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:42:27 PM EST

WV offers 39 delegates, 28 via the election. With 3 congressional districts at 6 delegates each, Sen. Clinton may be able to take 4 to 2 in each of them at her current vote percentages.

Then there are 7 at-large & 3 pledged PLEOs to be apportioned on the statewide percentage. If she can hold 66%, that yields 7 Clinton to 3 for the other candidate. Wow.

Sen. Clinton could come out of WV with 19 advantage over 9 for Sen. Obama.

Need to Nominate 2,209.0
B Obama 1,932.5
H Clinton 1,889.0

Her closing the gap to 1,941.5 vs. 1,908 does matter, a great deal.

Even by the fuzzy maths, using the 2025 shorter yardstick:
Need to Nominate 2,025.0
B Obama 1,859.5
H Clinton 1,696.0

She would have 1,715 to his 1,868.5 and takes away some of the leeway on attracting superdelegates.

Every time Sen. Clinton goes up by any number she makes it that more implausible that Sen. Obama can gain the true 2,209 needed to end the nomination process on the first ballot.

your comment was fine (5.00 / 4) (#27)
by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:46:16 PM EST

but it fails to consider anything but pledged delegates.

There are pledged, unpledged, add-on and superdelegates. All must be counted. The superdelegates can decide or change their mind up until the last minute in August at the convention.

Pledged delegate lead is but one facet of the equation. It's not the end-all.

Personally (5.00 / 4) (#45)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:56:16 PM EST

I would delete this comment because it is intentionally inflammatory.

As you may know, I am a front paghe poster at this site and I believe Obama is almost certainly going to be the nominee.

But I must say that his online supporters, such as yourself, have exhibited such poor taste, such poor judgment that a part of me wants to see you folks get a comeuppance.

In short, if it was my choice, you would be suspended for the day for your deliberately provocative comments.

[ Parent ]

: I think you confirm my judgment (5.00 / 4) (#63)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:14:02 PM EST

It is up to Jeralyn. you are spoiling for an argument.
You will not get it from me.

[ Parent ]

the remaining Superdelegates are not (none / 0) (#157)
by ding7777 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:18:43 PM EST

rushing to endorse Obama

[ Parent ]

Also, (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:48:15 PM EST

Dean, Pelosi and Carter don't control the superdelegates. In my view, you are crediting them with more clout than they actually yield.

As a new poster, you have make up to 10 comments today.

I just deleted (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:49:23 PM EST

a race-baiting comment from a Hillary supporter in response to your comment.

This is the funny part of your comment (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:50:25 PM EST

"Dean, Pelosi, and Carter have all said that the superdelegates will not override the pledged delegate winner."

First, it is false. Dean NEVER said that. Pelosi and Carter said they should not do it.

Second, if Obama loses all the rest of the contests 80-20, he will not be the nominee.

Third, of course Obama is NOT going to lose the remaining contest by those margins.

fourth, I guarantee you Obama will campaign his butt off in Oregon after next Tuesday.

Armando, isn't pledge delegates sort of (none / 0) (#46)
by Florida Resident on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:57:09 PM EST

a misnomer? Since according to the rules even they can vote their conscience. They really only expected to vote as was voted in the primaries/caucuses of their states.

[ Parent ]

Sure (none / 0) (#48)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:58:39 PM EST

But it is safe to assume they will vote fro the candidate they are committed to.

[ Parent ]

Do you think that some delegates (none / 0) (#56)
by DJ on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:06:49 PM EST

have changed their mind and if it went to the convention would change their vote on a second ballot?
I ask because I know several folks whose opinion has changed since our primary (not that they are delegates)

[ Parent ]

aren't some... (none / 0) (#57)
by p lukasiak on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:07:50 PM EST

Isn't there some sort of "first ballot" rule, BTD? My impression during the whole silly "Clinton is trying to steal pledged Obama delegates" controversy is that her campaign was talking to them about switching after the first ballot...

[ Parent ]

It is important to understand Rool 12J (5.00 / 4) (#69)
by Cream City on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:24:19 PM EST

so FactCheck.org checked it out:

Pledged delegates vote for ... well, whomever they please. Unlike delegates to the Electoral College (many of whom are bound by state law to vote for whichever candidate won their state), the DNC does not require that delegates be bound to a particular candidate. Indeed, the DNC's rules state that:
DNC Delegate Selection Rules (Rule 12J): Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.
In an e-mail to Time magazine, a DNC spokesperson explained rule 12J to mean that "delegates are not bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the Convention or on the first ballot." The rule was intended to allow the convention to function "as a deliberative body" and to free delegates "to vote for the presumptive nominee" in the event that the candidate to which they were pledged has since dropped out of the race.
In practice, pledged delegates are unlikely to change their votes. DNC rules allow candidates to vet their list of pledged delegates and to remove any delegates they wish. Thus, pledged delegates are likely to consist of a candidate's most fervent partisans.

Note too the interesting fact (5.00 / 2) (#132)
by brodie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:04:55 PM EST

that it was largely because of longshot candidate Ted Kennedy, current major Barack backer, who kept his campaign going to the convention in 1980 where he fought (unsuccessfully) what his camp called the "robot rule" that absolutely bound delegates, that resulted in the revisions we now see in our current more flexible (if rarely mentioned in the MCM) rule.

Yes, HRC doesn't have a great shot at it currently, but you never know.

In 1980, had Ted been smarter about spending time in the SupTues (June 3) state of OH, he might well have achieved a huge sweep of states that day and made a very compelling case about his electability, and Carter's unpopularity, to the convention. Alas, he listened to his (stupid) pollster about OH being "too far gone", made only one 11th hour visit, and the rest is history ...

[ Parent ]

: That is intriguing; thanks! (nt) (none / 0) (#148)
by Cream City on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:37:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Dean, Pelosi, and Carter (5.00 / 2) (#51)
by daria g on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:02:42 PM EST

Aren't able to make this decision by themselves.

Dean has said 'electability' is now the thing (5.00 / 2) (#70)
by andrys on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:27:42 PM EST

You've not been keeping up.

In an interview with The Financial Times, Howard Dean told them the following:
[as reported -- here are some excerpts]

The Democratic party's "superdelegates" have every right to overturn the popular vote and choose the candidate they believe would be best equipped to defeat John McCain in a general election, according to Howard Dean, chairman of the US Democratic National Committee.
. . .
He said there was nothing in the DNC's rules that would prevent the party's unelected superdelegates, who make up about a fifth of the overall delegate tally and who will ultimately pick the winner, from "doing what they want".
. . .
"I think the race is going to come down to the perception in the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be. I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote or anything else."

(If I were sure my candidate had won the nomination but it just wasn't official, I wouldn't be invading forums friendly to them to try to shove the idea down the throats of people whose vote the candidate will need in November.)

- Andrys

yeah, but he only said that (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:30:12 PM EST

because he thought, for just a second, that Obama might not get the pledged delegate lead.

[ Parent ]

: Actually, Dean said that on April 26 (5.00 / 4) (#86)
by andrys on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:38:32 PM EST

Obama already had "the math on his side" which MSNBC has been saying for over a month.
Dean's words were startling, actually. And it indicates some doubt somewhere, when he talks about the last 6-8 races.
His saying "or anything else" was pretty clear-cut.
You can see which are the last 6-8 races, and WVa and Kentucky are among those.

- Andrys

[ Parent ]

I appreciate this post, Jeralyn (5.00 / 6) (#76)
by bridget on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:30:34 PM EST

it was good to find this topic discussed and I have to say I have also been impressed with Jerome Armstrong. Only recently found out he supported Hillary because I started to read his posts on Mydd only a couple months ago. I find his posts civil and professional. It's also v. good to see he takes a strong stand against those who accuse Clinton supporters of racism.

I doubt it will help, however. I also don't think Paul Krugman's advice re same issue will have an impact on those Obama supporters who follow that route because calling Bill Clinton esp. and Hillary and her supporters racially motivated early on in this primary did work for the Obama campaign and the media had a field day with it. And many A list bloggers did "come out" for Obama after the Jackson remark was spun by same into a tight web.

We don't have a nominee yet no matter what Obama supporting pundits and pols are writing and telling everyone these days. Good to see that JA reminds bloggers of that fact even if Obama himself seems to think otherwise. Just read that he is ready to "talk" to HC about her helping role in his campaign for Prez ... but not just yet because she is still running.

But why insult Hillary and her supporters even further by planning a victory party now and making it public ... for the media support?

: The victory party talk (5.00 / 2) (#123)
by IzikLA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:47:20 PM EST

Is all about lowering voter turnout and making Clinton supporters think they shouldn't even bother to vote. Obama and his campaign know better. The politics of it is deplorable.

[ Parent ]
: consider this! (none / 0) (#184)
by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:01:26 PM EST

i noticed that the dem convention is set around the time of the mlk famous speech. that is a great idea in itself and well deserved by the king family. i couldn't help but wonder if it also had something to do with deciding in advance that obama would be the one speaking there even before any real primaries began. color my cynical.

[ Parent ]

WV+AR = 11 electoral votes. (5.00 / 6) (#89)
by davnee on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:38:51 PM EST

Clinton has a far better chance to win in these two states in Nov. than Obama has to win in the mythical CO. But let's grant them their exclusive victories in each of these states, because we know these are the states that are only open to one of the Dems. News flash: CO has 10 electoral votes. 11>10. So how is Obama the safer bet in this election?

Look, it is possible that Obama is electable. I have my serious doubts, but given current economic conditions and severe Bush fatigue, it just may be that the Dems could even run a pig wearing lipstick and still win this cycle. But why on Earth are we condemning ourselves to testing this hypothesis? Clinton has morphed into an awesome candidate. She's peaking at the right time. Obama is bleeding out, and we haven't even hit the GE campaign yet, when he'll targeted with bazookas instead of a gloved hand. This is madness!

BTD talked about this a while back (5.00 / 9) (#99)
by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:49:06 PM EST

Obama is a roll of the dice while Clinton is the more sure thing.

I'm not a gambler. I've got a nephew in Afghanistan who got shot yesterday (just a flesh wound; he's fine and he's staying over there to be with his buddies). Why would I gamble with his life? Why would I gamble with the lives of other family members serving in Iraq and working with our troops in Germany? Even if they were strangers to me, who am I to take such chances?

It boggles the mind.

[ Parent ]

Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#165)
by dissenter on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:48:17 PM EST

I'm headed back next week and a BO presidency scares me way more than 100 years of war John McCain. That is pretty sad isn't it.

[ Parent ]

: Be safe! Thanks for your service. (none / 0) (#200)
by DeborahNC on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:05:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Amazed and confused (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by MikeB08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:44:10 PM EST

I continue to be amazed and confused that so many Obama supporters don't see the importance of allowing this process to play out fairly and completely. No matter which way you count it, there will be less than 2% difference in the final total between these two Democrats. If he is the nominee and only 25% turned against him in the GE, it would be devastating. Continuing to try to brute force Sen. Clinton out is like giving her supporters a reason to follow a different path in the GE. I commend Sen. Obama for treading very lightly when it comes to claiming a false victory and his talking heads and bloggers should follow suit. If one or the other's delegate total does not reflect 2209, then the contest continues until it does.

Not buyin' it ... (5.00 / 2) (#134)
by dwmorris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:07:51 PM EST

the good cop / bad cop routine coming out of the Obama campaign seems pretty transparent. In addition, the statements from Obama on the issue strike me as subtly condescending and dismissive, as if in his mind he's already decided he's won and now fully entitled to the nomination. Clinton seems to have become just another annoyance, like reporters asking uncomfortable questions while he's trying to enjoy his waffle.

[ Parent ]

Some of it is CDS (none / 0) (#101)
by Same As It Ever Was on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:53:28 PM EST

some of it is fear that the process continuing will leave little time to heal the party and lay the foundation for November. People have become used to the nomination contest ending early. The fact that it hasn't is creating uneasiness among those who believe the race to be over.

And I don't think it is an unreasonable opinion to hold that the race is all but over given the math, no doubt because I believe it is. But Obama has not won conclusively as many here point out. There remains a chance Clinton can win. But the odds are high and I hope the party is not irreparably damaged at the end of the process.

[ Parent ]

Bill Clinton's wasn't resolved until June (none / 0) (#141)
by andrys on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:16:23 PM EST

He did win.

- Andrys

[ Parent ]

: Yes. (none / 0) (#207)
by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:57:08 AM EST

But that race was not nearly so hotly contested.

[ Parent ]

mike, it is more than that. (none / 0) (#185)
by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:03:23 PM EST

the dnc and many bloggers are inviting many groups the core supporters of the democratic party to in affect leave. they are no longer wanted per brazile and others.

[ Parent ]

Everyone... (5.00 / 2) (#108)
by OrangeFur on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:12:55 PM EST

We need you out there making phone calls.

The Obama campaign and the press is trying to downplay the results of West Virginia, saying that the race is already over and thus depressing the turnout there.

We need not only a huge margin, but a huge number of votes. Let's all do our part!

: Here's how: (5.00 / 3) (#115)
by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:31:26 PM EST

Phone bank for Clinton by clicking here.
You can also donate. If you're maxed out to Clinton, then Emily's List is doing a great GOTV program to get women united for Clinton. Call their DC number on Monday (202) 326-1400, and ask to have your donation go directly toward GOTV for Hillary.
Rise, Hillary, Rise!

[ Parent ]

47 States or 58 States Obama? (5.00 / 2) (#112)
by txpolitico67 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:27:26 PM EST

Which is it?

His not campaigning in WV just paints an even larger picture of the "elitist in chief." Don't think that for ONE minute the GOP won't exploit the fact that BHO didn't go to KY or WV to campaign.."see, he's OUT of TOUCH"

SOB! GD! WTF?! Is the DNC and its cabal so freaking outta orbit that they don't see what I see? And I'm just a layman? Someone posted how if BHO wins CO (doubt it thanks to some input from Jeralyn) that = 10 EV. But if Clinton runs she could win AR & WV=11 EV.

Once again, logic takes a back seat and common sense is no where to be found. Gotta appease those creative class types so they can revel in their loss in November...but hey, you ran Obama! Good for you! There's a line over at Daily Kos: "We'd rather lose with Obama than win with Hlllary."

I.loathe. every. single. one. of. them.

He's campaigning in WV on Monday (none / 0) (#119)
by bumblebums on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:38:05 PM EST

He has 11 regional offices throughout the state. He's running television and radio spots. There have been plenty of surrogates making his case.

[ Parent ]

See, Clinton doesn't need surrogates (5.00 / 3) (#130)
by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:00:30 PM EST

to make her case. She actually goes to the voters--you know, the little people--and asks them to entrust her in seeking the dem nomination for the presidency of the United States.

It's called respecting the voters.

[ Parent ]

Don't be silly (none / 0) (#135)
by bumblebums on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:09:28 PM EST

She has her own surrogates running around just as busily.

[ Parent ]

yeah, silly time (5.00 / 3) (#137)
by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:13:01 PM EST

not visiting one of the 57 states where he's about to have his waffle handed to him on a steaming platter.

We already have a president who stays away from folks who might not think he's God. Not working too well for us, is it?

[ Parent ]

Reading is fundamental (none / 0) (#139)
by bumblebums on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:15:25 PM EST

He will be in West Virginia, himself, campaigning.

Is that clear enough?

[ Parent ]

: On Monday (5.00 / 3) (#151)
by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:00:29 PM EST

one day before the election.
If you think that's working hard for votes, I'd like to have your job.

[ Parent ]
: Yep (none / 0) (#170)
by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:25:35 PM EST

1 day......nah*, he's not conceding. :)

[ Parent ]

But, many superdelegates have already gone (5.00 / 1) (#120)
by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:40:35 PM EST

Dean, Pelosi, and Carter have all said that the superdelegates will not override the pledged delegate winner.

Against the pledged delegate "winner". Dean, Pelosi and Carter aren't at the top of my list of people with credibility right now. They make these comments, but they forget to include known truths:

Numerous superdelegates pledged AND publicly endorsed a candidate before a determination of who the "delegate winner" could be known.
Numerous superdelegates have endorsed the candidate that is contrary to their state voters choice. (this is true for both candidates)

Those blanket statements have no basis in fact, but they do serve to establish an expectation to the voters. Makes it easier to diminish all hope in the Clinton supporters.

It's not over -- until Hillary says it's over (5.00 / 1) (#126)
by dwmorris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:54:32 PM EST

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no mechanism to force Clinton out of the race. If the Obama campaign, in collusion with the MSM and DNC, unilaterally declares victory (ala Bush 2000), the response of the Clinton campaign needs to be (scratch that -- has to be) "see you in Denver." This type of power politics can't be tolerated in the Democratic Party, and must be met with an equally aggressive counter response. Over 16.4M Americans have already cast votes for Clinton and that has earned her the right to determine if/when she leaves the race. The super delegates don't get their turn to actually vote until August.

WV won't count if our media have a say (5.00 / 2) (#162)
by Richjo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:36:07 PM EST

We can be assured that our friends in the press will use the results of West Virginia to try to further smear white working class voters as racist. They have already begun that process. What we will never hear is the truth- that Barack Obama is an under qualified, untested, unaccomplished candidate whose core constituencies are willing to overlook those shortcomings because of their personal affinity for that candidate.

It is not suprising, or unreasonable, that African Americans would like to see one of their own elected after years of discrimination and injustice. This is a savvy and intelligent group of voters, and ever since Obama's Iowa win they have been overwhelmingly supporting him. Once Obama proved he could win, they were willing to support him strongly. To point this out is of course branded as racism, allowing the Obama camp to further cement their support amongst this group. There is no doubt that many woman support Hillary because of their desire to see a woman elected, but saying this is no where near as controversial because Hillary does not suffer from the perception that she is untested or under qualified.

Obama's lack of appeal to working class voters should not be suprising. McGovern, Dukakis, And Kerry all had the same problem, and Obama is very much in that mold. His unfortunate comments about this group in San Francisco don't help in this area either. He wouldn't be winning them if he was white and had the same background, attitudes, and policies. An African American with the right approach could win them- Colin Powell for example.

Obama's other base is affluent white liberals. These voters have always prided themselves on being non racist. They have finally found a black candidate like them- Private School and Ivy League educated, professional, and who looks down on the people who actually engage in the tough work that is politics. (As if they how somehow above all of that.) The opportunity to prove how non racist they are, coupled with the ability to vote for someone just like them is too much to resist. The Clintons don't fit their ideal mode because they come from Arkansas, and have the nerve to seek the middle ground in order to govern effectively. (It is OK to do this in the abstract so one can claim to be above partisan bickering, but once you have actually had the responsibility of governing your motives in doing so with undoubtebly be impugned by some hyporcritical fraud trying to move up the ladder themself and who can get away with such hypocrisy because so little is known about them.)

The people voting for someone other than Obama are not being unfair in judging Obama, the turth is more that those who support him are being overly fair to him and are ignoring his major short comings as a candidate. Those shortcomings are, and will continue to be exposed. Hopefully in spite of all this people will simply say no to another Republican adminstration. The problem is John McCain is not a typical Republican. I am positive Obama could beat George W Bush (or Dick Cheney for that matter). The question is can he beat McCain. That I am not so sure about.

: Overly fair (5.00 / 2) (#173)
by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:35:53 PM EST

is a nice way of saying that they expect very little and will not hold him accountable.
My issue is with the party that has put this type of candidate forth. No thanks.
They aren't the party of solutions, and we very much need those.

[ Parent ]

supporting the Democratic nominee (5.00 / 1) (#190)
by s5 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:33:55 PM EST

I'm glad Jeralyn made it clear that she'll support the Democratic nominee against John McCain. I hope others follow her lead, no matter what taste is left in your mouth from this rather unpleasant primary, and no matter who comes out ahead.

As a strong Obama supporter, I've always known that I would proudly vote for Hillary Clinton and help her win in November if she won the nomination. As much as I disliked her primary campaign and find her policies to be stale and impotent, she's still a Democrat, which makes her light years ahead of anyone the Republicans could possibly run. Even the worst Democrat is infinitely better than the best Republican. (And with Lieberman and Zell out of the party, I can say that without qualifiers.) I hope other Clinton supporters will remember this, just as I've been reminding my Obama supporting friends that we should be prepared to fight for Hillary Clinton.

There's so much trash talk on both sides, and I think it's important to remember that half of us will be in the position of defending someone we didn't like in the primary. I defended Kerry even though I wanted Dean, because ultimately I knew he was light years ahead of Bush. It's important that once the primary is over, that we remember what a disaster McCain would be, regardless of which Democrat wins.

The rules (1.00 / 7) (#77)
by onemanrules on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:31:34 PM EST

everybody agreed to from the start was 2025 delegates to win the nomination (even HRC).

she signed a pledge stating she ageed with the punishment to Fl and MI. I guess she was having a Bosnia moment when she did that.

It's more than obvious as to whom the sd's are going. Since 2/5/08 he has a net pickup of 90 while she has a net pickup of 12 according to RCP.

W. Va does count, but it counts for nothing when it comes to changing the overall outcome of the primary.

It may be sad, but when it comes to the sd's and powers of the democratic party she has become an after thought.

It will be officially over on 6/3. She will not take it to the convention.

Nooooo (5.00 / 5) (#84)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:37:09 PM EST

No one agreed to that.

You are ignorant of the facts or lying.

Please stop it HERE. At other sites they may appreciate it. We have discussed those issues in great detail at this site and this post is not about that.

If you can not refrain from falsehoods on that issue, please do not comment here.

[ Parent ]

No, what part of that wasn't correct (none / 0) (#201)
by onemanrules on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:16:44 PM EST

I thought you were the one with the more objective view on this site. I can back up everything I said and I will. I'm sorry if the truth means nothing on this site anymore.

Article #1 from: http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/25/editorialFollowDncRulesOnSeatingDelegates

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) has suggested seating the Michigan and Florida delegates at the Democratic National Convention, even though the Democratic National Committee (DNC) stripped them of their status. The DNC originally set itself up for trouble by denying these influential states a place at the convention as punishment for scheduling their primaries too early in the year. However, the fact remains that, since each and every Democratic presidential candidate pledged not to campaign in these states and to abide by the DNC's decision, these delegates should not be seated at the convention.

On September 1, the campaigns of Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) issued press releases stating that they had signed pledges affirming the DNC's decision to approve certain representative states and sanction others for moving their nominating contests earlier. But now that the race is close, Clinton -- whose top advisor Harold Ickes voted as a member of the DNC to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates -- is pushing for the delegates to be seated.

Her argument is that not doing so disenfranchises the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who voted and that her pledge promised only that she wouldn't campaign in the states, not that she wouldn't try to seat the delegates. However, the results of the contests in Florida and Michigan are not necessarily representative of the voters' preferences in those states. Given that most of the candidates removed their names from the Michigan ballot, and that many voters stayed home from the vote in Florida with the understanding that their contest would not affect the final delegate count, the delegate totals that the candidates accumulated in these states may not accurately reflect the will of the voters. Had there been no restrictions in Michigan and Florida, the turnout, and thus the results, may have been different.

The Four State Pledge all candidates signed on Aug. 28 stated, "Whereas, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar... Therefore, I ____, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules ...pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window." When the candidates pledged to campaign only in approved states, they were also agreeing to the terms listed above, which explicitly mentioned stripping noncompliant states of their entire delegation.

And I know my super delegate math is correct. So please inform of what I am wrong about. I'm not trying to be ignorant about it. I really want to know what the falsehoods are. Or is it just that I'm not a Hillary supporter that you are upset about.

[ Parent ]

your comment will be deleted (none / 0) (#202)
by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:22:49 PM EST

because of the long url. If your'e not going to follow the comment rules, don't bother coming here.

I'll leave it up for 1/2 hour or so in order to let you save your work. After that, it's gone.

[ Parent ]

: sorry (none / 0) (#203)
by onemanrules on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:41:37 PM EST

i'm fairly new to the blogging thing so I'm not sure exactly how to do some things.

[ Parent ]

I think (5.00 / 3) (#92)
by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:42:23 PM EST

it's more interesting to note the number of her committed Dems who are not jumping.

That's the real story.

Now, let's review what we know about politicians. We're not really talking about a gang which hardfast. LOL*

Yet, they haven't all jumped the wire.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm*

[ Parent ]

What Obama (none / 0) (#171)
by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:27:08 PM EST

repeatedly said isn't necessarily agreement with everyone, which is why she is so close.

This is just his ideas, which he's trying to insist that nearly 50% of the party swallow.

[ Parent ]

Jeralyn? Anyone? (none / 0) (#9)
by Florida Resident on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:24:44 PM EST

Has any one confirmed the thing about the calls in WV from the Obama campaign were they told people not to vote in the primary?

Well, (none / 0) (#10)
by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:25:48 PM EST

that's politics.

[ Parent ]

: That is vote suppression tactics (5.00 / 4) (#38)
by Florida Resident on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:50:56 PM EST

something Obama is very familiar with remember Chicago 1996.

[ Parent ]

why (none / 0) (#124)
by DFLer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:48:07 PM EST

Regardless of whether this rumor is true or not, why would the Obama campaign tell people not to vote? What would be the benefit of that strategy?

[ Parent ]

to suppress the vote (none / 0) (#128)
by andrys on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:58:04 PM EST

If people don't vote, as they suggest, then the numbers will not affect the popular vote total much, which is the danger for Obama now, with Hillary closing in WVa and Kentucky.

Since something like 70% of the people are more likely to vote for Clinton, it's a smart if another "Old Politics" move by him.

Something about calling up people who plan to vote for another candidate and telling them the nominee's already been chosen, don't bother. Since it's not true, what do they call that in this world?

- Andrys

[ Parent ]

: My song to Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#131)
by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:04:33 PM EST

and all of you turkeys who think this is over:
Country Roads
Take me Home
To the Place
I belong
West Virginia
Mountain Mama...
Take me home...to the White House

[ Parent ]
: thanks (none / 0) (#145)
by DFLer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:24:55 PM EST

I thought it was suggested that they would contact just their supporters and tell them not to vote....

[ Parent ]

Reduce The Popular Vote Total (none / 0) (#172)
by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:31:23 PM EST

Hillary needs to win the popular vote or get real close to be able to sell the SDs on the idea that she is the one most likely to win in November.

[ Parent ]

West Virginia matters, but so do Oregon, (none / 0) (#17)
by halstoon on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:34:01 PM EST

Montana, and South Dakota. Kentucky and Puerto Rico matter as well. Barack has made it very clear that he has not won anything. After Oregon and Kentucky, the campaign believes it will be clear that they will finish with the delegate lead, which is what the celebration is for. Whether the number is 2025 or 2209 really doesn't matter. What matters is that Sen. Clinton will not win the race for pledged delegates.

All I would hope is that when Barack wins Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota the leaders of TL write this same kind of story about Clinton, insofar as those races indicate that not everyone is ready to nominate her, either. Those states also represent that Sen. Clinton has some issues in the West, which could be a determinitive region in this election.

Supporting Clinton is not what I disagree with; I admire the passion on both sides. What I disagree with is slanting the discussion so that Barack is always put in the worst possible light.

To do so while calling DK and others ostriches makes TL seem no better than those it criticizes.

: I think supporting Hillary is exactly (5.00 / 5) (#19)
by ChuckieTomato on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:38:23 PM EST

what you disagree with. About Montana, Oregon and S. Dakota, it's possible Hillary could gain some big time momentum from WVa, so I wouldn't count her out yet.

[ Parent ]
: I just recall (5.00 / 9) (#21)
by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:39:11 PM EST

all the outrage, and the NY Times op-ed piece calling Clinton "unseemly" for going to Florida the night of the election and having a party. I find it rather unseemly that Obama is declaring victory when he has not won.
Just like Bush during 00 saying he had won Florida.
And Bush under the Mission Accomplished banner.
Fool me once...

[