Hillary Picks Up Tenn. Superdelegate After W. VA Win

Hillary Clinton's win last night in West Virginia has resulted in a superdelegate declaring for support for Hillary today:

Tennessee Automatic Delegate Vicky Harwell announced her support for Hillary Clinton today. Harwell, of Pulaski, is president of the Tennessee Federation of Democratic Women.

"Hillary's decisive victory in West Virginia is the latest evidence that she is the strongest candidate to take on John McCain and win back the White House," Harwell said. "Hillary has the plans, leadership and experience to deliver real results as President."

Hillary got 40 pledged delegates in the TN primary while Obama got 28. Breakdown of Tennessee's 85 delegates below:

Tennessee will send 85 delegates to the Democratic Convention in August. Based on results of the state's Feb. 5 presidential primary, won by Clinton, the New York senator gets 40 committed delegates, while Obama gets 28.

The remaining 17 superdelegates go officially uncommitted, though some have stated publicly who they intend to support.

The four declaring they will back Clinton are Bill Owen of Knoxville, a Democratic National Committee member; Elisa Parker, vice chairwoman of the state party; Jimmie Farris of Memphis, widow of former state Democratic Chairman William Farris; and Myron Lowery, a Memphis city councilman.

The four declaring they will back Obama are U.S. Reps. Steve Cohen of Memphis and Jim Cooper of Nashville, along with state House Speaker Pro Tempore Lois DeBerry of Memphis and former state party Chairman Will T. Cheek of Nashville.

The nine other previously selected Tennessee superdelegates, including Gov. Phil Bredesen and former Vice President Al Gore, have declined to state a preference.

< Clinton Media Call Live Blog | NARAL Endorses Obama >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    And She Will Pick Up More....The Smart Ones (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:07:27 PM EST
    will start moving toward her if they truly are looking out for the good of America and the democratic party.

    Most elected SDs are only looking for cash (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Jim J on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:10:13 PM EST
    and to them, Obama is a walking ATM.

    You Are Correct. obama Has Already Spread (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:12:10 PM EST
    around over a million dollars to the super delegates; but in the end, they may have to eat some crow and switch to HIllary.  It is a waiting game and it isn't going to be over until Denver.  I can't see HIllary giving up like Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004.

    His special PAC for that (none / 0) (#68)
    by andrys on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:09:53 PM EST
    Per Harper's, he quickly established:
    "a "leadership PAC," a vehicle through which a member of Congress can contribute to other politicians' campaigns--and one that political reform groups generally view as a slush fund through which congressional leaders can evade campaign-finance rules while raising their own political profiles.

    In the meantime, HuffPo's new big headliner photo of Obama smiling, hands behind ears, is titled with a large headline saying:

       "HILLARY WHO?"

    If the story is moved, the photo is also here.

    In the meantime, Obama's resuscitated church ad of "FAITH, HOPE, CHANGE" was first used in South Carolina, I'm told.  Here's another story.
    The large version of the main photo section with Text Box insert is here.

    A more seemingly pragmatic flyer is a a "clean Kentucky coal" sheet discussed at an environmental news site.
    One of his problems is the academic long-term solution that doesn't give relief in the meantime.


    that cash advantage (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:21:38 PM EST
    hasn't helped Obama these last few primaries.

    I think that it has (none / 0) (#64)
    by cannondaddy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:57:30 PM EST
    He cut a 15 point lead down to 9 in PA.  In IN, he cut a seven point lead down to 1. In WV, he uh... um... his money didn't help him in WV.

    Well they are politicians... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Leisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:15:44 PM EST
    money, power, connections...  So much more goes into these deals than we will ever know.  I wonder if someone is trying to connect the dots.

    That would be telling.


    I think this is one (none / 0) (#20)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:24:04 PM EST
    of the serious drawbacks with the Clintons.

    They do n ot spread their cash around for other dems.

    they do fundraisers and what not, but they failed to make other dems dependent on their patronage.


    They try to earn their votes. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:25:34 PM EST
    Works a lot better with the voters than with the elected Dem officials, apparently.

    No need to lecture people (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jim J on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:49:28 PM EST
    Salo is just making an objective point. Not everything here has to be 100 percent pro-Hillary all the time.

    I think madamab (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:26:09 PM EST
    has raised a valid point, too.  I'd hardly call it a lecture.

    I'll even add to it: the Clintons have helped raise millions for dellow dems over the years just by showing up.  They are both fighters, and work hard for dem causes.  This is exactly what the statement from this latest Clinton SD is meant to convey: loyalty to the party, celebration of hard-working dems who will not give up on the middle class.  

    Folks are so worried about race, but it's the class divide we should seriously be focusing on here.  Bush open the chasm by putting his foot on their throats.  The elites, whether they know it or not, are the ones really going in for the kill.

    Folks ignore the import of this SD's statement at their peril.


    Giving superdelegates money for their (none / 0) (#69)
    by andrys on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:12:39 PM EST
    campaigns is very much like a bribe.  But, that's Old Politics.

    again (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:14:04 PM EST
    a few thousand Idaho voters have the same net impact as 140,000 WV voters.

    it's absurd.

    But but but (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:27:40 PM EST
    Obama will turn red states blue! Yes, he can!

    /drinks more Kool-Aid


    Cyanide Blue? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:38:12 PM EST
    By right HRC should get WV superdelegates (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Prabhata on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:20:50 PM EST
    all of them.

    They can... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:33:48 PM EST
    but there have been arguments that SDs should consider voting the way their state/district does.

    Obama supporters had that position until he got Kerry and Kennedy in his column while the rest of MA went for Clinton.

    Boxer on the other hand announced that she would vote the way her state did. Shuler for his district.

    Ultimately, the SDs get to vote however they want.


    That Argument Is No Longer Valid (none / 0) (#56)
    by flashman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:43:36 PM EST
    now that Hillary is leading under that rule.

    interesting...weird... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:00:47 PM EST
    note the "there have been" in my post. I guess that was the old guideline/position.

    Do we know what the new guideline/position is yet?


    Oh the things that you hear (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:31:51 PM EST
    Last night Cooper or someone on CNN kept saying the following;  

    "Obama is inevitable and no one will want to be left out of the historical event of the first African American president"  
    Then he said, the Clintons will not want to left out, they will join in.  Uhh, this is the whole MSM infatuation.  They don't care who Obama is what he represents.  They don't care about the country.  The SDs I am afraid will fall and are falling to the same idiocy.  

    Stupidity. (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by AX10 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:37:14 PM EST
    I do not believe in voting based upon race/gender/ethnic background.
    In that respect I may be a conservative.
    I will look at the person's attributes, policies, and character when making my choice as whom to vote for.

    And (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:38:08 PM EST
    imagine the drooling the press will do  when Obama gives his nomination speech on the 25th anniversary of the MLK I have a dream speech. (a coincidence I'm sure that they moved the convention to coincide with this date).

    Yep, I'm going to keep repeating this one until someone admits that it seems a little fishy.  Did the DNC have the Obama nomination "sewn up" before the primary fight even started?  Seems that way, considering the way they've weighted everything in his favor, starting with the revocation of rights in MI/FL.


    I am The Dream you were waiting for! (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:43:14 PM EST
    Anyone see that picture of Obama where he sweats glistening stars and a unicorn frolicks in the river behind him?

    A link... (none / 0) (#59)
    by NWHiker on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:11:58 PM EST
    for those who haven't. From Shakesville.

    Big deal (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:36:09 PM EST
    She can still win the general election.  He can't.  It's that simple.

    She can't win the GE (none / 0) (#67)
    by cannondaddy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:00:54 PM EST
    if she can't win the nomination.  She can't win the nomination without winning superdelegates.

    He's unelectable (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:58:48 PM EST
    Does anyone but me wish just one of these delegates would come out and say... Clinton is the only Dem with the experience to take on two wars, repair our foreign policy platform and deal with our economy.  Only Clinton has the voter base and the ability to win in November.  The important thing is to win in November and while I respect Senator Obama, and I appreciate the new vote and money he has brought to the party, the White House is what's at stake here.

    Until someone has the balls to give up the money, November is not going to matter.

    Yeah, and then we've got Edwards endorsing (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by BrandingIron on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:25:30 PM EST

    Obama.  What an @ss.  I mean, seriously.  What is wrong with the SDs...are they that stupid?  Never mind...I already know that they are.

    My Lord... (none / 0) (#1)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:07:26 PM EST
    Obama actually got that many delegates after getting beaten by 41 points? In a PRIMARY?

    Next time, the DNC had better eliminate all this nonsense and have a national primary day. No more caucuses, IRV, winner take all.

    This is ludicrous.

    But...kudos to the SD from Tennessee! Here's how it begins...I hope...:-)

    madamab....thank the lord he didn't lose by (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:09:18 PM EST
    50 points. :)  Really, you have to wonder what is going through the minds of these people.  Obviously, they do not want to win.  Look at the way the repubs are salivating over the thought of obama as the nominee...they see a republican WH in their future.

    We're Talking Tennessee, Right? (none / 0) (#22)
    by flashman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:24:43 PM EST
    He only lost by 13 there.

    Heh heh heh. (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:26:39 PM EST
    A 14-point win for Obama is a blowout.

    A 13-point win for Clinton is a squeaker. ;-)


    Huh? (none / 0) (#30)
    by flashman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:30:02 PM EST
    Who called it a squeaker?  

    Mickey Matthews (none / 0) (#38)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:37:00 PM EST
    and Taterhead Timmeh.

    The Point (none / 0) (#45)
    by flashman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:42:01 PM EST
    is that the delegate allocation for Tenn is fair, given a 54-41 win.

    By HRC's Definition, 13 points IS a squeaker! (none / 0) (#76)
    by RMinTN on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:38:24 PM EST
    I went to a Hillary rally in Nashville, TN the night the South Carolina primary results came in.  By the time she went on, the returns had already established that Obama got 55, she got 27, and Edwards got 18.

    I'm glad I had my digital recorder going.  My friends would have thought I was BS'ing when I said that she referred to South Carolina as a "close race".


    A big blow (none / 0) (#5)
    by ajain on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:11:52 PM EST
    NARAL (the million member Pro-Choice group) endorsed Obama.

    That is huge. Endorsing him over her is pretty extraordinary.

    I Haven't Thought Much of NARAL For A (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:13:28 PM EST
    very long time.  As we have seen, many of these endorsements don't mean jack.

    Well (none / 0) (#10)
    by ajain on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:16:00 PM EST
    This is an organisation that has supported Clinton her entire political life. So its a big deal in my mind. Its pretty much a party coalascing around it nominee. Not that this is going to improve his electability, but its something.

    All The More Reason To Think There Is (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:26:07 PM EST
    something wrong here.  I am sure there was a big contribution from the obama pac to help bring this about.  Sorry for the disillusionment, but it has happened alot this campaign cycle.

    Since you asked, I'll tell you (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by angie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:57:47 PM EST
    Elections should not be won on the basis of who has the most money -- elections should be won on the basis of who is best for the job. Yes, Obama is able to raise more money then God it seems, but that does not translate into him being the best choice for President, especially as endorsed by NARL -- Obama has no solid record to stand on on women's issues (and, in fact, actually said that the pro-choice people just don't understand "what a wrenching moral decision" an abortion was). This is such a bogus endorsement it is laughable and completely inexcusable.  

    Whoooeee Angie...Don't Stop Now. You Are (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:55:13 PM EST
    on a roll and what you said is valid on every point.

    Would you still be saying that... (none / 0) (#77)
    by RMinTN on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:40:28 PM EST
    ... if the HRC campaign had money?

    The endorsements mean a (none / 0) (#14)
    by mg7505 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:18:48 PM EST
    lot. But only when they endorse Obama.

    mg....apparently, but NARAL isn't what it once was (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:24:09 PM EST
    ...and you have to wonder how big a contribution they got to their cause.

    No...As I Said, I Am Not Impressed By NARAL (none / 0) (#57)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:53:47 PM EST
    Well they will never get a contiribution from me (none / 0) (#62)
    by smott on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:44:06 PM EST
    ...got the same NARAL email.

    Think I may send a flamer back.


    Shrug (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:16:56 PM EST
    I stopped supporting NARAL when they endorsed Republican Lincoln Chafee over Sheldon Whitehouse.  It was evidence of political cluelessness to me.

    Supporting Lieberman over Lamont was just the icing on the cake.

    I really don't care who they endorse in this primary.  They have no idea what they're doing.


    I guess (none / 0) (#15)
    by ajain on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:19:42 PM EST
    But well, to counter that the WomenCount PAC are running ads in USAToday, NYT and couple other newspapers to make their voices heard.

    Voices Heard (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by ajain on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:21:18 PM EST
    To make sure Clinton stays in the race.

    It just kinda ticks me off. Why did NARAL have to endorse before the primaries were over. I mean, seriously, would it really hurt them to shut up.


    NARAL ? (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by noholib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:37:43 PM EST
    Yes, all his "present" votes on abortion legislation in the Illinois State Legislature must have turned their heads.

    A good reason to stop donating to them.  


    Or it COULD be a sign... (none / 0) (#78)
    by RMinTN on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:49:45 PM EST
    that NARAL was sending a message along the lines of "We're willing to be less Dem-monolithic with our endorsements if more Republicans were pro-choice".  His voting record on abortion was 90% in line with NARAL.  I come from a state of generally conservative Democrats; I would LOVE to have most of them voting 90% with NARAL.

    They're not supposed to be an arm of the DNC.  They're supposed to back candidates that back their agenda.  Chafee did, and it would have been smart for them to try and have a "come to Jesus" moment with the GOP.


    That could hurt him (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Leisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:18:22 PM EST
    if he is the nominee in the fall...  He claims Republicans will vote for him?  I think this endorsement will take away many he thought were his...

    I was thinking it complicates ... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:40:41 PM EST
    ...the cross over thing and his squawking in his book about reaching out to prolifers.

    Proud pro choice Dems don't plan on (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:35:15 PM EST
    supporting anti choice judges. So, Obama isn't a proud pro choice Dem.

    NARAL also endorsed Joe Lieberman (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:21:50 PM EST
    and according to Jane at Firedoglake shares responsibility for giving us Justice Sam Alito.

    Big blow? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Davidson on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:22:24 PM EST
    As others have already mentioned, NARAL isn't exactly the most politically savvy or principled organization.  However, when is the last time any endorsement was a big blow to either candidate?  Remember, the Kennedys were to be the death knell for Clinton in MA and CA.

    That all maybe (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by ajain on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:27:47 PM EST
    But psychologically, why would a pro-choice group go so far out and endorse a male candidate over a female candidate. I just think that is extraordinary. It may say something to political junkies about the organization, but it looks bad.

    Also, for them to do this today, which is pretty good news cycle day for Clinton is pretty extraordinary.


    Sniff-sniff (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:34:39 PM EST
    Smells like a purchase to me.

    He's reassuring women (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:47:00 PM EST
    that he's a feminist.

    NARAL endosed Lieberman (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by Prabhata on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:25:45 PM EST
    HRC is better off without controversial supporting groups like NARAL and MoveOn.org

    I think the political director of NARAL is married (none / 0) (#33)
    by Exeter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:31:58 PM EST
    to one of Obama's consultants. I'm sure that probably had something to do with it.

    off topic please discuss on (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:41:18 PM EST
    the naral thread. This is about superdelegates

    Extraordinarily unwise (none / 0) (#46)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:42:21 PM EST
    I don't trust BHO on keeping reproductive healthcare options available and accessible for women.

    Time to write another letter to another organization on why they will get no more money from me.


    In the opening to his Audacity (none / 0) (#48)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:46:06 PM EST
    of Hope book, he makes nice with prolife waitresses and prochoice CEOs who want an abortion for their daughters.

    Chances are that abortion access will diminish and Roe v Wade will be paid lip service whether it's Clinton or Obama.


    spin? (none / 0) (#54)
    by diogenes on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:28:03 PM EST
    If the thread is about superdelegates, why no mention of the two who endorsed Obama today (the international super and the Indiana one)?

    Same reason no one mentioned Clinton's ? (none / 0) (#70)
    by andrys on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:20:43 PM EST
    She got one today but I don't remember who it was.  I was just surprised anyone would come out for her in this atmosphere.
    Brave soul.

    TN delegates (none / 0) (#63)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:45:18 PM EST
    Take a look at which delegates in TN went for Clinton, and you get an idea of what's going to happen all over the South...I'd bet, well, a bit of money that a lot of the current "undeclareds" for this region are Hillary supporters.  BIG TIME.  Here's hoping all those  cackling about "persuading the supers" wind up with mondo egg to clean off their faces.

    I'm not too worried about it. (none / 0) (#72)
    by BrandingIron on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:26:45 PM EST
    The supers don't vote until the convention, and until then, anything can happen.  I think Clinton has big plans for challenging him AT the convention.

    Obama picked up a couple of supers today (none / 0) (#73)
    by riddlerandy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:31:12 PM EST
    three if Edwards is a super, not sure