home

When Their Superdelegates Do It, It's Okay?

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:50:40 PM EST
Tags: West Virginia '08 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I recall supporters of Barack Obama claiming profusely at one time that the pledged delegate vote is the will of the people and the superdelegates should accede to it. Will they complain about this?

Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Rep. Nick Rahall, two of West Virginia's superdelegates backing Barack Obama, say they're sticking with him despite polls showing Hillary Clinton a heavy favorite in the state.

"I view my role as a superdelegate as one that takes the long-range view of what is in the best interest of our party and our country," Rahall said Thursday.

Rockefeller said he's sticking with his conscience.

No, I didn't think so. Any more than they complained that Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry were going against the will of the voters in their state.

< Saturday Night: Comedic Relief for Dueling Supporters | Rich Drives A Square Peg Into a Round Hole >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    When Their Superdelegates Do It, It's Okay? | 103 comments (103 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    What a crock! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by bjorn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:57:56 PM EST
    I hope West Virginians vote them out on the next go around.

    They won't be voted out. Sen. Rockefeller is one (none / 0) (#4)
    by oh please on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:04:27 PM EST
    of the few honest politicians WV has had.  He was the first governor that I had, growing up there, that did not go to jail almost as soon as he left the governorship.  Whether you like his choice or not, it's good for WV to see a leader view an African American as an equal.  We could have used more of that type of example when I was growing up.    (Please don't delete this, even if it doesn't correspond with your opinions.)

    Parent
    I wish I had the experience (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by shoephone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:20:56 PM EST
    of having been Rockefeller's constituent, as you are. I might feel differently about him. As it is, I think he has been a dismal failure as a senator and committee chair over the past year. He has done absolutely nothing to hold Bush accountable on the illegal spying (read: egregious violations of the Constitution). He is sticking with his benefactors in the telecom industry on immunity and he has bent over time and time again for the banking industry.

    He may have had integrity at one time, but not lately, AFAIK. His decision to support OBama is his to make. I believe it has less to do with believeing BO is the best choice for president and is more about competition with -- and personal dislike of -- Clinton, who has shown throughout this campaign season that she -- unlike he -- has the cojones to fight for the American people.

    And where the h*ll is Part II of the 9/11 investigation? We've been waiting for about three years.

    I don't mean to deny your knowledge of your senator. But from what I've witnessed, he has been in politics too long. I want senators who will show the courage to confront the criminality and corruption emanating from the White House. Rockefeller doesn't pass that test. Not by a long shot.

    Parent

    I think there's a reason he is known as (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Anne on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:30:04 PM EST
    "Jello" Jay Rockefeller - and you summed it up nicely.  He's been another Democrat who has talked big, but when push has come to shove, has backed down again and again.

    I've wondered from time to time if maybe one of the reasons Obama has gotten support from many of the long-time Congressional Dems is because they believe it will be much easier to control Obama and keep the country from knowing how much they really did know and approve of what the Bush administration was doing.

    Parent

    Well, with Obama's admiration of Reagan (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by shoephone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:42:34 PM EST
    and the Republican Party of Ideas, any comeuppance for Bush, Cheney and their Democratic accesories before and after the fact will surely be discarded on Inauguration Day.

    You scratch my back...

    Parent

    Sheesh! He did not say he admired Reagan. (none / 0) (#56)
    by oh please on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:47:50 PM EST
    He said he changed the trajectory of the electorate...and he did.  Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true...it makes it a bigger lie.

    Parent
    oh please (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:53:09 PM EST
    you have posted 20 comments here today. the limit for new posterds is 10 in a day. You cannot post any more until Monday.

    Parent
    shoephone :-) (none / 0) (#24)
    by RalphB on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:24:12 PM EST
    I just commented the same thing about the intelligence report.  Typical gutless, go along to get along politician.


    Parent
    We are on the same wavelength, Ralph. (none / 0) (#31)
    by shoephone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:28:04 PM EST
    Were you eating pesto and chicken pizza too?

    Yum. So fattening though.

    Parent

    Yum! (none / 0) (#83)
    by RalphB on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:28:48 PM EST
    I had a nice ribeye and caesar salad.  Had to satisfy the carnivore this evening. Still fattening though  :-)


    Parent
    Please see reply to RalphB above (none / 0) (#34)
    by oh please on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:29:47 PM EST
    and, AFAIK, Sen. Rockefeller has not been in charge of Intelligence for three years.  I'm not saying that he's the greatest politician on earth.  I'm just saying that his intentions are not bad.  Also, he endorsed Sen. Obama long before it was established that he would be the nominee, so it was not "going along to get along."  If anything, it was the least safe choice he could have made at that time.

    Parent
    Sorry but (none / 0) (#86)
    by RalphB on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:32:56 PM EST
    I didn't mean "go along to get along" about endorsing Obama.   That was strictly about the work of the intelligence committee, or rather the lack of it.


    Parent
    I hope Senator Rockefeller (none / 0) (#9)
    by bjorn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:08:35 PM EST
    views women as his equal too.  Is he voting for Obama because he his Black?

    Parent
    No, he's voting for him because he (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oh please on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:11:13 PM EST
    believes he was correct about the war when it began.  Actually, when he was Governor, he was very supportive of women's issues, especially pro-choice, in a very pro-life state.  He may be "elitist" due to his wealth, but it has allowed him to take stands without worrying about the political climate.

    Parent
    I am glad to hear (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by bjorn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:14:41 PM EST
    he supports women's issues.

    Parent
    Then why did he vote for the AUMF? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by RalphB on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:21:54 PM EST
    seems like more of a weak excuse than anything else.

    And what about that report on the Iraq intelligence, the one Pat Roberts would never do?  well Rockefeller won't do it either.  he's the typical go along to get along democrat, and it's pathetic.


    Parent

    He admitted that he was wrong. It's nice that (none / 0) (#25)
    by oh please on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:24:44 PM EST
    somebody can.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:29:22 PM EST
    It's nice to see people admit they were wrong after the polling changes on the issue.

    Parent
    It's nice that someone admits a mistake (none / 0) (#37)
    by oh please on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:31:19 PM EST
    when the facts demonstrate that mistake.

    Parent
    Oh Please, didn't you watch the debates (1.00 / 0) (#55)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:45:54 PM EST
    Hillary has most definitely said she regrets her vote. Problem is, people are not paying close attention to exactly what that vote was asking for, and many democrats voted "yes" with conditions.

    If you are going to base your entire argument against a candidate, it is a good idea to know that topic inside and out.


    Parent

    I see (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:32:02 PM EST
    You seem to think polling determines the facts.


    Parent
    WTF? Where in the world (none / 0) (#48)
    by oh please on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:39:16 PM EST
    did you come up with that being my logic?!  I am suggesting that at least one senator can't admit a mistake when the facts demonstrate that it was, indeed, a mistake to support going to war.

    Parent
    Rockefeller voted for the war (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by shoephone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:25:47 PM EST
    He and Obama and Clinton have all voted to continue fincancing it.

    If he wants to be believable, he should probably choose another reason for supporting Obama.

    Parent

    Voting to fund the troops when the votes (none / 0) (#42)
    by oh please on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:33:14 PM EST
    to bring them home aren't there is not the same as supporting the war in the first place.  And Sen. Rockefeller, like Sen. Edwards, and others have admitted their mistake.

    Parent
    I don't know... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:25:49 PM EST
    I don't know his record on Women's issues, but his dogged support of Telecom Immunity is, well, garbage.  I know he backed off a little bit since Shrub wouldn't take yes for an answer, but he is in my dog house for that issue alone.  I don't care if he is anti-war, I do care if he's anti-Constitution.  I sure hope he isn't advising Sen. Obama on that issue.

    The Iraq War will be a big issue, but it will not be the decisive one unless the Economy does a rapid 180 and soon.  Since the Economy moves very slowly in its trends, I feel the Economy will be the preeminent issue.

    Jackson

    Parent

    Obama thinks Rockefeller's judgment is (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:26:59 PM EST
    Impaired.

    I think Rockefeller's endorsement of Obama is further proof of that.


    Parent

    Oh You Mean Like Pushing For Telecom (none / 0) (#85)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:32:48 PM EST
    immunity...yeah that one is a winner...NOT

    Parent
    Actually, (none / 0) (#61)
    by liminal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:50:27 PM EST
    I was talking to someone today who was a state employee when Jay was governor.  She was working for less than minimum wage at the time in a state job, as the state can pay less than the Federal minimum wage, when Jay froze state wages.

    Nice, huh?

    Yes: Moore was a crook.  Caperton was a decent governor, however.  Charlotte Pritt would've been a great, progressive governor - the first female governor of WVa - but I didn't see Jay going out to lend some of his political heft to her.

    Bill Clinton campaigned with her, though.

    Parent

    That Might Have Been The Old Rockefeller (none / 0) (#84)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:30:54 PM EST
    but there have been many instances of his swaying with the wind that I do not like.  

    Parent
    They are using the guidelines (none / 0) (#43)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:34:01 PM EST
    Both of my state senators are giving their SD vote to Clinton but my state caucused Obama.

    Until the superdelegates cast their vote at the convention, they are just talking.

    Parent

    Thank you for your voice of sanity! (none / 0) (#51)
    by oh please on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:41:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Hillary should point to this (none / 0) (#75)
    by Iris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:07:24 PM EST
    as a confirmation that the media and the Obama campaign has jumped the gun, again.  If Rockefeller can consider the 'best interests of the party and country' then every superdelegate can.

    Parent
    I haven't heard any Obama supporters (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Faust on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:00:40 PM EST
    complaining about this issue in quite some time. I think that particular rhetorical argument was dropped in late Feb.

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:01:31 PM EST
    Super Tuesday made many SDs unavailable to them.

    Parent
    That was part of it. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Faust on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:15:32 PM EST
    The other part was as Obama's win streak ran through Feb and they accumulated a pledged delegate lead they realized that they could rest on that argument alone.

    Therefore the rhetorical strategy moved to emphasizing the total delegate count and not the popular will of any given state.

    Some people still hung on to the old argument but the big guns moved on to the new talking points.

    Parent

    you forgot number of states (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:18:11 PM EST
    the most important metric.

    Parent
    The way Obama tells it, (1.00 / 0) (#74)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:05:11 PM EST
    the number of states is a moving metric. Depending on his state of awareness, it ranges anywhere between 48 and 59.


    Parent
    rephrased (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:04:52 PM EST
    I rephrased the first sentence in case they have stopped saying that. I guess I stopped listening to them.

    Parent
    the current talking point (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:15:12 PM EST
    seems to be this "long range view" one, where they purge their wonderful party of everything Clinton.  Kennedy said just about the same thing the other day with his "noble" crap.

    It really reinforces the "if we can't win with Obama, I don't want to win" rhetoric we have been seeing on the blogs lately.

    It's just...amazingly stupid.  (funny anti-dynasty talk from a descendant of vice president Rockefeller)

    Parent

    Funny, the Kennedy dynasty (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:40:54 PM EST
    would have loved to retain decades in the presidency. Every son of Joe was groomed to run this country.

    Parent
    Yeah, there was no need of such, after February (none / 0) (#20)
    by Tatarize on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:21:17 PM EST
    Initially in this race Clinton had something like a 90+ delegate lead with her massive cushion of super delegates. It seemed pretty unfair to have that lead dwarf the pledged delegate lead (which Obama has had since day 1) and so those types of arguments were being tossed around. However, after Obama's pledged delegate lead exceeded Clinton's superdelegate lead and party officials were careful to note that there would be pandemonium if the people voted one way and the superdelegates voted the other way (overturning the will of the pledged) in a case when there was nothing critically wrong with the candidate.

    The arguments were long since dropped because they stopped being a worry. Today Obama has reduced Clinton's superdelegate lead to 0 and has a 100+ on the pledged delegate front. Ofcourse nobody is going to feign opposition to superdelegates doing exactly what the rules say they can... vote the way they want. I thought those particular paroxysms were always misplaced as the superdelegates aren't a mask band of election stealers. I can no more damn Clinton supporters in districts Obama won than I could care about the reverse.

    Seriously, get off the drama train... it's only stop is whiny town.

    Parent

    Apparently, the senate men's club (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by chancellor on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:05:07 PM EST
    will do literally anything to keep Hillary from getting the nomination, including making up the rules as they go along.

    The rules were made up... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Tatarize on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:24:05 PM EST
    Oddly enough go ahead and look at the DNC rules, nobody is breaking any of them. The SDs get to vote the way they want.

    Parent
    That is exactly right (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by shoephone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:32:12 PM EST
    which is why the Obama camp's argument that SD's have to vote the will of their constituents is bunk. I don't notice Kennedy, Kerry or Patrick changed their endorsements after Hillary trounced Barack in the Massachusetts primary.

    Parent
    That's what (none / 0) (#79)
    by Iris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:21:28 PM EST
    I was thinking.  It completely obliterates the argument that the primary is over.  What may happen here is that in midsummer a significant portion of the OFB will wake up from the dream, realize that their guy can't win because he's already been 'defined' before the campaign started, and the pressure will mount to drop out for the sake of the party.

    Alternatively, after every single primary contest is over, and Hillary has the popular vote, we can spend a month making the case to superdelegates before the convention.

    Parent

    No. (none / 0) (#105)
    by Tatarize on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:58:52 AM EST
    The primary is over because the primary is over. She lost. Nothing changes that.

    Parent
    I'm perfectly aware of that (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by chancellor on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:49:29 PM EST
    I'm simply pointing out that what I see taking place is the old boys' network rationalizing their votes however they need to in order to make sure Hillary doesn't receive the nomination. As shoephone notes, Kennedy and Kerry have chosen to use personal preference rather than voter preference as their rationale. Are they entitled to do that? Of course. However, it is my understanding that, along with the freedom to vote independently, is an obligation to consider which candidate is best positioned to win the general election. IMO, personal prejudices are superseding that obligation. You may disagree.

    Parent
    I've wondered for a long time why no one ever (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Anne on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:05:19 PM EST
    questioned these guys about the disconnect between what the majority of their constituents had to say at the polls, and their support for the candidate who lost - or in WV's case, will lose - when the Obama campaign was the one which kept making the "will of the people" argument - and was supported in that argument by people like Donna Brazile and many others.

    I always thought it was a stupid argument to make, because I sensed that at some point, they might want to make a different argument and would end up looking like hypocrites.  And here we are.

    I get why they did it - because so many of the SD's had already committed to Clinton before the first votes were ever cast, and they wanted to cast Obama as a man of the people, and Clinton as the old-style Washington pol - trying to box in the SD's.  

    I don't know what 2008 is in the Chinese calendar, but I think in ours it might have to be the Year of the Hypocrite.  I won't hold my breath waiting for Time to give me yet another grinning photo of Obama on its cover with that headline.

    It's the Year of the Rat (none / 0) (#22)
    by akaEloise on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:22:35 PM EST


    Parent
    There is a lot of anger (none / 0) (#65)
    by liminal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:53:15 PM EST
    on the ground in WVa about it.

    Parent
    I kept making the same point at DKos (none / 0) (#112)
    by BachFan on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:39:14 AM EST
    but I eventually just gave up, because none of the Obama supporters would admit they were being logically inconsistent by celebrating Kerry's and Kennedy's endorsements in defiance of their constitutents' votes for Clinton, while arguing that superdelegates who'd endorsed Clinton should meekly follow their constituents' votes for Obama.

    I'm sure there are Clinton supporters who've been equally illogical, too ... but this point still bugs me.

    Parent

    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by bjorn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:06:16 PM EST
    Hillary went out of her way not to use her First Lady status in the Senate. She worked hard under the radar a lot during her first time.  Why are all these old guys falling in line behind Obama, the new kid on the block, even when their constituents don't vote for him?  I don't get it. Does she have bad breath or something? Or is it really all about gender?

    I don't get it either (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:17:43 PM EST
    this outright hatred, the belief that she is evil incarnate, is so baffling to me.  They hate her so much that they have completely lost sight of reality.  

    What hurts the most is that I have always thought as dems that we had the high road.  Now I see that all the same festering sores the republicans wear with pride are being scratched by our own people.

    Parent

    DNC and Congress (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by RalphB on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:18:33 PM EST
    are scared to death of Hillary as president.  She seems to really want to put her policies into place instead of just talk about them for a few more years.

    I've come to really believe that the dems in congress want to do as little as possible, thus not angering their corporate masters, and she might throw a monkey wrench into the works.

    If you're looking to cripple business as usual in DC, vote Hillary.


    Parent

    Yeah, (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:28:53 PM EST
    I've said for a while now that a weak president benefits them most.  Clinton would kick hiney and take names.

    That still does not explain the hatred.  I mean, it's vile, bile-spitting hatred.  What's up with that?

    Parent

    i think it's what happens when (1.00 / 0) (#94)
    by kangeroo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:55:40 PM EST
    obama supporters/surrogates start to believe and internalize the hate-clinton narrative fed to them by the campaign.  

    at some point, the ones who know her are probably hit with too much cognitive dissonance between the spin and their personal knowledge about her--so they have to choose between (1) unconvincingly faking it and feeling guilty about mischaracterizing her; and (2) choosing to believe the spin--thereby allowing themselves to rationalize their backstabbing hate.

    and once you start down the path of option (2), it's hard to turn back.

    i agree with a lot of what