When Their Superdelegates Do It, It's Okay?

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:
    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.)

    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.


    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.


    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...


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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  :-)

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.



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

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


    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

    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.


    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.  

    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.


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

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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)


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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
    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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?


    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 anglachel wrote here.


    The hatred (none / 0) (#88)
    by RalphB on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:38:57 PM EST
    may be partly based on falsely blaming Bill and Hillary for the loss of Congress in '94.  Or it could be they have convinced themselves to hate her because of their fear.  Bush is self-delusional, why not the dems in congress?

    You might be right (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by bjorn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:29:54 PM EST
    One does get the sense that if Clinton were to be the first woman president, that would be great, but she also wants to be a great President, and the only way to do that would be to shake things up and get healthcare passed.  Maybe it is really true that a lot of people in congress just don't want that to happen.

    By All Indications (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by The Maven on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:26:54 PM EST
    it is largely because a lot of members of Congress (and Senators, in particular) expect that a President Obama would be very weak in terms of exerting executive power and would readily accede to a more assertive legislative branch.  This may, of course, turn out to be naïve on their part.

    In contrast, they fear that Clinton would be far more likely to attempt to dominate the process and strongarm Congress to enact her programs.  So, in that sense, it could be seen as a matter of self-preservation of their interests, weak versus strong.


    Good luck... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:38:28 PM EST
    Good luck on that Dem Congress.  He is trying to reconfigure the entire Democratic Party, the oldest political Party in the world.  But no no, he won't dare try to strong arm the Congress.  LMAO

    Neither Bill or Hillary would get down on their knee and kiss the butt of the party stalwarts in 93 after he won, so they hated his guts, and now they hate hers.  No big mystery there.  Like David "Dessicated Corpse" Broder infamously said, "They came in and wrecked the place, and it isn't their place."  How they can still hate him after being the most succesful Dem. President since FDR is beyond me, but being self-destructive is what we are all about I guess.  Very, very FRUSTRATING!



    Jeez yes. (none / 0) (#92)
    by RalphB on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:43:39 PM EST
    All the control talk does seem to be the beginnings of American fascism, or something like it.

    I thought we were in danger of repeating the Weimar republic from the right.  Maybe we should worry about the other side?


    Part of it is gender (none / 0) (#82)
    by Iris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:26:04 PM EST
    and part of it is irrational tabloid-style Clinton hatred.

    The level of hypocrisy (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by janarchy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:32:08 PM EST
    that has been perpetrated by the Obama campaign has been staggering, hasn't it? I remember Eleanor Norton Holmes talking on the Colbert Report self-righteously claiming that she and Obama had agreed that all the SDs would 'vote the will of the people in their constituencies' regardless of the outcome because it was the fair thing to do. Apparently the only time that's actually valid is when the will of the people voted for Obama. Kerry has also used the 'voting my conscience' line in the past.

    What's also staggering is that now the SD argument is being used to push Obama towards the magic number and it's considered 100% acceptable and part of The Roolz. When it was going in Hillary's favour, all of the MSM and Obama's supporters derided it and claimed it was cheating. One of the reasons I stopped watching Countdown was that Olbermann kept mocking the SD arguement and saying "Sooooooper Delegates" with the utmost disdain over and over again like a petulant 12 yr old. Now that's all dead and buried.

    As for Rockefeller, he was one of the good guys, I thought. Guess there's one more person I'll be scratching off my donations list in future.

    Obama adulaters (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by pluege on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:34:30 PM EST
    ...have cornered the market on hypocrisy this election season.

    I hope (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by OldCoastie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:37:41 PM EST
    West Virginians are really up for making a statement on Tuesday - a GREAT BIG statement.

    Did you ever think... (none / 0) (#10)
    by stevenb on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:09:08 PM EST
    ...that politicians ACTUALLY are looking our for their constituencies?  Come on!  At most, our elected officials will bend over when a good idea benefits their career, but the overall EGO involved with the political career completely and totally outweighs respecting the individual voter.

    When someone uses the rational of "the long-range view," it is just another way of saying: "don't worry, we the smart guys will take care of you uneducated, irrational prols."

    Besides my own opinion of politicians, do you think Obama's supporters would ever cave and give in to their Prince losing?  The DLC have doth chosen the winner, no matter WHAT the people say.

    Did seem like he was talking down to the voters (none / 0) (#12)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:12:17 PM EST
    I think this is a bit too (none / 0) (#87)
    by Iris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:38:49 PM EST
    cynical, elected officials do sometimes look after their constituencies, believe it or not, whether out of self-interest, a desire to achieve or remain in office, ego, actually giving a damn, or (more likely) a mixture of all these plus other factors.

    Ego is one of those things that can be good or bad, depending on how you temper it, at least IMHO.  As an example did Bill Clinton's ego factor into the fact that he thought he could be president?  Sure, but he also looked after one of his key constituencies with the EITC.


    Per Diane DeGette today at the CD-1 Convention (none / 0) (#28)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:25:51 PM EST
    ""I don't know if any representatives of the media are here, but if there are I want to say that I don't know of any Representatives who is or would try to do that," referring to overturning the pledged delegate lead.'

    I'll be curious to see what you have to say when she declares, Jeralyn.  

    she's already declared for Hillary (none / 0) (#71)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:01:47 PM EST
    months ago and is the chair of one of her big committees.

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#113)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:30:03 AM EST
    My point is that it will be interesting to see how she is treated around here should she change her support to represent "the will of the people".  

    And that seems to be the what the gist of her comments at CD-1 were all about.


    the manipulators win again (none / 0) (#49)
    by pluege on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:39:58 PM EST
    Gore, Edwards, Dean, soon Clinton.

    the game of the past 8 years is clear: make sure democrats have the least electable candidate represent them.

    Yes (none / 0) (#57)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:48:03 PM EST
    I've really started to realize that this pattern is NO accident.

    I thought the argument was that the supers (none / 0) (#54)
    by fuzzyone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:43:20 PM EST
    should not give the nomination to one candidate if the other had the lead in pledged delegates after the primaries were over, not that a super could not support a different nominee than their constituents voted for.  Am I missing something.  Its clear that Clinton will not have the pledged delegate lead when this is over so there is no chance that any SD supporting Obama will reverse the determination if that is your metric.

    uy (none / 0) (#58)
    by kid oakland on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:48:50 PM EST
    You cherry pick what you want, BTD.

    I've always said that Super Delegates are free to choose whom they want.

    The rules only say that they vote, seated with their state delegations at the convention after the pledged delegates have been selected.

    Of course, that puts political pressure on them. And that's the point. Clinton lined up the majority of her Supers before a single vote was counted. BTD doesn't write about that. Hypocrisy is for other folks!

    Meanwhile 10,000 Barack Obama supporters all over the nation registered tens of thousands of voters today and that's not even a story here at TalkLeft.

    Vote for Change is a good program. I registered seven people today.

    1 young Latina. 2 young Af-Am men who had never voted. 1 immigrant Filipina senior citizen. A white/asian young couple with kids. 1 white senior citizen who had just moved to Alameda County.

    Nothing much in the grand scheme of things, I guess. Take that times 10,000 and you have something significant.

    We did that in all 50 states...in big, well-organized efforts and in smaller, homespun ones in small towns.

    Sure, it's just a political campaign. Right?

    Who else has done this kind of effort in May of an election year? We Obama volunteers are going to register new voters all over this nation and keep track of them and canvass them...bottom up.

    That's no small thing. It's also a pretty good implicit argument to make to Super Delegates. It shows what the Obama campaign is about.

    But, typical of TalkLeft, you don't cover that story, and then get outraged when Supers vote for Barack.

    Maybe you should start paying attention BTD. We are registering Democrats.

    That's what matters on election day. Supers get that.

    BTD did not write this post. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by shoephone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:53:57 PM EST
    I know, I sent (none / 0) (#69)
    by kid oakland on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:57:34 PM EST
    Jeralyn an email apologizing.

    I disagree with her, but, yes, I look like a fool, here.  Egg on my face.


    I got the email (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:02:40 PM EST
    honest mistake, no problem.

    It is a wonderful thing (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by DJ on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:15:16 PM EST
    to be bringing people into the political process.  That is to be commended.  It would be nice if their candidates had real policies that would be put in place to help them.   From what I've read Obama registered many people when he was a community worker but he didn't DO anything to help them.  

    The Obama "movement" is great for bringing people in to the process.  But the goal is not only to win.  It is to help govern and change peoples lives for the better.  

     That is unfortunately where Obama fails.  And it will hurt the very people you are trying to help.  I think you mean well but I do not think the same for your candidate.  Thank you for what you are trying to do.


    Not only that (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Iris on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:00:12 AM EST
    The Obama "movement" is great for bringing people in to the process.  But the goal is not only to win.  It is to help govern and change peoples lives for the better.  

    That is unfortunately where Obama fails.  And it will hurt the very people you are trying to help.

    Not only that, but it will damage the Democratic Party badly.  Obama will be (and already is) cast as the super-liberal no matter what he does, as they would attempt to do with Hillary, but it's easier with Obama.  So he'll get the 'out of touch liberal' label like John Kerry did without actually having any solidly liberal policies...and a 'compromise' will mean going even further to the right.  End result, Obama's policies would be far more conservative than Clinton's -- he starts the negotiation out with the 'compromise' position as his opening offer.

    I don't know what you are talking about (none / 0) (#80)
    by kid oakland on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:22:46 PM EST
    HRC campaigned and claimed that "small states" that Democrats don't win don't matter.

    The only way we pass health care, end the war, fund education, repair the housing mess, and create energy independence is by having as many Democratic voters and Congresspeople in all 50 States as possible.

    This post is about Super Delegates and the rationales they use to choose a candidate. My point is that registering voters is a pretty good way to persuade an elected official or DNC member that you are serious about growing the party.

    And, yes, more Democratic votes, more safe districts, expands the playing field and move legislation in a progressive direction. We pass more and better laws when we elect more and better Democrats.

    Our elected leaders vote out of fear. We are showing a new way.  Small donors, empowered grass roots volunteers and electing more and better Democrats.

    HRC's supers are the one's who don't get that.

    Carole Shea Porter, a NH Congresswoman elected without national DCCC help or national blog support gets that to the core and that's why she supports Barack Obama. That's a valid reason.

    Plus the voter registration effort in NH today!


    I just know that Obama (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by DJ on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:42:49 PM EST
    registered many voters In Chicago and yet when it came down to their representation or money for his cronies, he chose his cronies.  Maybe he did some good.  I've not read anything about that on any blogs.  I've only read about people asking for heat in their apartments and Rezko the slum lord not providing.

    Registering is good.  But you have to deliver.


    I wrote a piece (none / 0) (#98)
    by kid oakland on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:26:18 AM EST
    about Barack Obama in Chicago.  You should read it.

    I'm less than impressed with today's NYT piece. It seems their coverage has devolved to "gotcha" politics.

    An "elitist" Tennis Club? Come on. That's gratuitous. If that's what they are getting at...there's probably not any other kind of tennis club.

    Fwiw, I live right next to the Don Budge courts here in Oakland. They aren't elitist, but they are not a club either.

    Regardless, that's pretty rich coming from the NYT seeing as no one is really attacking HRC for living in Chappaqua.


    Ya know (none / 0) (#108)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:35:07 AM EST
    if you actually are interested in getting Hillary supporters to support Obama you would just be quiet and not be doing victory laps that annoy us until all the voting is over. If you are that sure of victory why in the world will you not just be quiet?

    Many of us stay away from Obama supporting blogs so that we don't have to interact with rabid Obama supporters insulting us and our candidate.

    And lest you think that saying things like:

    And, yes, more Democratic votes, more safe districts, expands the playing field and move legislation in a progressive direction. We pass more and better laws when we elect more and better Democrats.

    Those "better" Democrats being of course the ones that you think better. Condescending, arrogant and smug that.

    HRC's supers are the one's who don't get that.

    Of course not. According to you.

    But keep annoying people. Because there are some that haven't decided whether or not to support a candidate they don't like, don't respect, and see as an inferior product.

    People who would never in a lifetime vote for a Republican will stay home if they are insulted enough and angry enough and have some Obama supporter pawing at them constantly. Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face is an old human trait.


    Lol, (none / 0) (#63)
    by kid oakland on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:52:13 PM EST
    I thought this was a BTD post. That's my bad Jeralyn! I'm sure I'll catch holy hell for that.

    I disagree with you, here. Sorry for the mix up.


    registering voters is a great thing... (none / 0) (#68)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:57:22 PM EST
    the "keeping track of them" thing? That sounds a little creepy.

    It's not (none / 0) (#76)
    by kid oakland on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:08:51 PM EST
    when you register new voters, they aren't on the lists. No one canvasses them, no one phonebanks them. But we should.

    When a campaign registers a voter (whatever their party or preference) that campaign can keep track of that voter, canvass them, follow up with them, make sure they are empowered to vote. A non-partisan, non-affilliated group can't and won't do that.

    New voters are the ones who have huge problems on election day. Improperly filled out registration forms. Lack on knowledge of the process. Lack of access to a source of information. A kick in the pants to get to the polls.

    If you think about it, it makes no sense for us to spend all our GOTV energy on people who vote all the time, and none on the very people who need information and inspiration the most.

    Think about 2004.  Think about all the confusion and problems. Those problems occured for new voters, for voters who had moved, for voters who did not know their rights.

    Obama will get these people early voting, I know that I got my people to sign up for automatic absentee balloting so they can get it out of the way early.

    That makes a difference on election day.

    All campaigns have lists. That's not creepy, that's getting organized.

    The question is, who is bothering to organize, who is bothering to do a massive effort to bring people in to the process?


    It's also why (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:19:01 PM EST
    I stopped answering the phone during the primaries here.

    I wasn't getting actual people. I was getting nasty attack calls from one candidate (D) against the other candidate (D) she was running against.

    And when I did get people...it was to ask for money.

    Plus the 7 messages a day not to forget to vote.


    Oh...tohse robo calls? (none / 0) (#81)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:25:20 PM EST
    they were congressional level. One of the Reps was being primaried.

    what bothers me is (none / 0) (#91)
    by Iris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:43:03 PM EST
    that they are willing to coronate Obama, plainly to get their hands on his voter database.  I want off the list!

    I know that I'm now on databases (none / 0) (#100)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:31:03 AM EST
    that I have no interest in being on. So the calls keep coming...and I keep not answering the phone.

    Big Deal - I've Had Bill Clinton Call Me (none / 0) (#115)
    by bird on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:34:12 PM EST
    Via robocall - who cares - I didn't ask to be on his list, but I'm not going to whine about it.

    Shouldn't this type of effort be centered ... (none / 0) (#104)
    by dwmorris on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:34:59 AM EST
    at the Party level?  Running this scale of operation out of the Obama campaign seems to cross some lines that shouldn't be crossed. Is the Democratic Party morphing into the Obama Party?

    x (none / 0) (#109)
    by Mary Mary on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:42:14 AM EST
    Good for you, kid. I've been registering voters since 1992 and guess that the total number is between 1,000 and 1,500 new voters, almost all Democrats.

    Keep on working! You've got quite a ways to go to catch up.


    Forgot to say (none / 0) (#110)
    by Mary Mary on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:45:51 AM EST
    My God, do you think no one has ever worked for the Dem party before Obama came along? Get over yourself!

    WTF? (none / 0) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:01:23 PM EST
    What do I have to do with this?

    I did not even COMMENT in this thread much less write the post.


    Data matters -- has anyone posted ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by dwmorris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:55:51 PM EST
    an analysis by state and congressional district showing how the elected super delegates would have to vote if constrainied to vote in accordance with the popular vote from their constituents?

    Excellent Explanation (none / 0) (#70)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:59:41 PM EST
    Lambert posted this on the previous thread. It explains really well how this process is supposed to work.

    Please stay on topic (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:03:22 PM EST
    there are two open threads up for other topics.

    Great for Hillary? (none / 0) (#96)
    by Chimster on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:21:27 AM EST
    "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 and Rahall should be congratulated for finally letting voters and other superdelegates know that all bets are off, and the delegate count is not too important a factor for superdelegates to consider since it is no longer the will of the people. The decision to endorse a candidate merely needs to be a gut feeling.

    This seems to work in Hillary's favor. Maybe she should offer these two her personal congratulations for plugging her argument.  

    well........................yeah! (none / 0) (#106)
    by cpinva on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:22:18 AM EST
    When Their Superdelegates Do It, It's Okay?

    geez jeralyn, what cave you been hiding yourself in for the past several months?

    want to know why the democrats couldn't beat conceivably the stupidest man ever to run for president, in 2000 & 2004? you just posted the answer.

    Bob Casey (none / 0) (#107)
    by karen for Clinton on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:39:51 AM EST
    Many times since his endorsement of Obama, people here in North East Pennsylvania (NEPA 75:25)have said they'll never vote for any Casey again.

    He not only endorsed, he was constantly on the media and at spoke rallies backing him to the hilt with false glowing praise and major spin.

    The radio shows were brutal the day after the primary. "Bob Casey was seen running behind obama's bus saying don't leave me here all alone."

    He doesn't have many friends in Pennsylvania.

    Hillary's Messages (none / 0) (#111)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:55:28 AM EST
    will all become truth.  That's going to be one very depressing aspect of this primary.  She really kept it honest.  Obama's supporters did not.  They manipulated.

    The issue of the role of the SDs is one example, but there will be many before we're done.