A Strange Endorsement

Former Clinton Super Delegate Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) has decided to support Barack Obama. And of course this is his right as Super delegates can change their minds right up to the Convention. But I found his rationale for the switch wanting:

While I continue to greatly respect and admire Senator Clinton and feel she has made history with her campaign, I believe that Senator Obama will inevitably be our party’s nominee for President.

Um, that's it? That's your big reason for switching. Okay. But he continues, and you'll laugh at this:

I am deeply concerned about the contentious primary campaign and controversy surrounding the seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan – two states Democrats need to win in November. I will not support changing the rules in the fourth quarter of this contest through some convoluted DNC rules committee process. Yet, we must find a resolution to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates so these states’ voters are represented at the Convention. I believe we need to avoid this potentially divisive situation by uniting behind one nominee and bringing the party together immediately. Therefore, I have made the decision to support Senator Obama at the Democratic Convention in my role as a super delegate.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Um what? That has to be one of the most obutse statements I have ever read. Permit me to take it apart.

Cardoza says he will not support "changing the rules." I have to ask who asked him to? Is he referring to Barack Obama who said he wants all the Florida delegates seated? Or is Cardoza implying that the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee is not operating within the rules? In short, WTF is Cardoza talking about? Let's continue. Cardoza then says:

Yet, we must find a resolution to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates so these states’ voters are represented at the Convention.

Um, didn't you just say seating them would be "changing the rules?" Excuse me Rep. Cardoza, WTF are you talking about? Let's continue. Cardoza writes:

[W]e need to avoid this potentially divisive situation by uniting behind one nominee and bringing the party together immediately. Therefore, I have made the decision to support Senator Obama at the Democratic Convention in my role as a super delegate

Well, of course now that Dennis Cardoza has spoken, that should be the end of it no? No RBC meeting. No more controversy in Florida and Michigan. Everything will be just fine now that the Great and Powerful Dennis Cardoza has spoken. Are you effing sh**ting me?

You'll excuse me, but I despise stupidity um, lack of intelligence. And this statement strikes me as one of the most obtuse things I have ever read in my life.

Next time, how about a one line sentence for a statement -- "I am switching my support to Senator Obama who has proven to me he would make the best President of the United States." Much better don't you think?

By Big Tent Democrat, absolutely speaking for me only

< Conyers Releases Documents on Rove Subpoena, Siegelman Investigation | Obama Tells Cuban-Americans He'll Meet With Cuba's Communist Leaders >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    LOL BTD (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:19:35 PM EST
    you always seem to cut through the bull. It seems that other SD that you were so hard on got sent into the basement. Perhaps we shouldn't let superdelegates make speeches if they are all this bad.

    Bizzaro World (5.00 / 10) (#2)
    by flashman on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:20:59 PM EST
    We must unite the party by uniting behind the one who divides us.  

    Up is down!  In is out!  When you leave, you say 'hello'  When you arrive, you say 'goodbye'

    The one who divides us? (1.00 / 2) (#58)
    by uncledad on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:05:49 PM EST
    How does Obama divide us? The party is divided because some won't support the other nominee out of some strange sense of entitlement gone away, or sexism, or racism, or what ever the latest excuse may be. I am an Obama supporter, but will support whoever wins the nomination. So who is dividing who?

    Context Matters (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by flashman on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:18:42 PM EST
    and the rep made his comments about 'uniting' in the context of MI & FL.  It is widely held that Obama blocked the revotes in those states.  Trying to unite the party over this issue by backing Obama makes no sense.

    Context? (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by uncledad on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:34:14 PM EST
    "It is widely held" is that like when FAUX news says "some say"? Widely held by who? How did Obama block revotes, do you have some documents that where filed in court? Like an injunction or something? Talk is cheap!

    An Injuction? (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by flashman on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:08:45 PM EST
    Since when did every fact need to be backed up with an injuction?  It's common knowledge that Obama slow walked the issue of a revote.  At least the voters in Fl & MI know this, and that's why Obama is there trying to make ammends.  Sheesh, if you haven't been paying attention, it's not up to me to educate you.

    Obama's campaign strategy is (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by esmense on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:03:31 PM EST
    inherently divisive. His message of "change" has not simply, or even primarily, been aimed at the opposition party. It is first and foremost built on the assertion that the most recent Democratic adminstration, and the baby boomer generation of progressive activists, share the blame with the current Bush administration for the current state of the nation and it's politics. The Obama "movement" has been, in fact, more critical of the former Clinton administration, working class Democrats, and an older generation of feminists, than of the conservative movement and its decades long dominance of national politics. Obama himself has offered praise for Republican "ideas" and for both Reagan and Bush I.

    As an Obama supporter you may be in agreement with his criticism of his own party; including both its most successful recent leaders and some large numbers of its traditional constituencies. And you may believe that Obama is putting together a "new" coalition that will out-number and destroy the power of these older constituents. But, if you are honest you must admit that such a strategy -- that seeks to undermine the participation and representation of some Democratic constituencies in order to attract a new coalition (dominated by younger voters, affluent liberals, neo liberals and socially liberal libertarians, independent white men, moderate Republicans) IS in fact divisive. You can't assert, as the Obama campaign and "movement" have done over the last 6 months, that the Clintons' are corrupt, divisive and racist, that the Democratic working class is ignorant, racist and incapable of understanding its own best interest, that older voters are out of touch and that serving their political interests is incompatible with the best interests of younger voters, and that an entire generation of women activists (who have unfailingly supported the Democratic party, civil rights and progressive causes) are a problem for the party rather than a strength, etc., without dividing the party.

    Obamacans have to make up their mind. Do they have enough confidence in their "new" coalition and its electoral strength to actually go ahead, and as the logic of their campaign message requres, throw these "old" constituencies, that they have stated and appear to believe are destructive to the party and incompatible with "change," out of the party or not?

    What they can't logically or reasonably do is to to campaign AGAINST and scapegoat these people and yet expect them to vote for Obama, and then, because you suddenly think you may need them afterall, ask them to vote against their own interests and expectation of representation, in the name of some kind of party "unity" (that the message of your campaign indicates you don't even want). You can't rail against people on the one hand and then turn around and ask for their vote. The only way to win anyone's vote is to offer them respect and honest representation.  



    Change (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by uncledad on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:47:54 PM EST
    I quess as a clinton supporter you see things differently. I have watched this campaign and feel that Obama has been quite respectful to Clinton and her base of support. His message of change is directed at both the Clintons and the republican party. What would you have him do, run against Hillary while embracing her as the best candidate? It is an election campaign, the way to win is to contrast your ideas from your opponents and hopefully appeal to more voters. Obama has done that and that is why he is winning. As far as:
    the Clintons' are corrupt, divisive and racist, that the Democratic working class is ignorant, racist and incapable of understanding its own best interest, that older voters are out of touch and that serving their political interests is incompatible with the best interests of younger voters, and that an entire generation of women activists (who have unfailingly supported the Democratic party, civil rights and progressive causes) are a problem for the party rather than a strength, etc., without dividing the party.

    I think you are confusing the Obama campaign with some in the media. Obama made this bitter statement in S.F. and apologized and said his remarks were "insensitive", I don't recall him saying any of your other comments?

    Obamacans have to make up their mind

    I am not an Obamacan, I am a lifelong democrat, but as long as your insulting me I will say that Clintonista'a have to make up thier minds, do you want 4 more years of bu$hco, cause your so dissapointed that your candidate didn't win, or will you support the nominee of your party? I will support whoever it is, what say you?


    I am disappointed in the party (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by esmense on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:18:38 PM EST
    leadership for failing to stand up to the outrageous sexism exhibited by the media, and in Obama for how he has conducted his campaign, especially his use of racist accusations against the Clintons -- but not in a potential Clinton loss. If Obama had proved to be a better candidate, and run a more honorable campaign, I would have been happy to support him -- and did initially support him over Clinton.

    Like the vast majority of Democrats, I started this campaign believing that I could be happy with any of the candidates vying for the nomination, although, initially, I supported Dodd (as a contributor, I never got a chance to vote for him). When it became obvious that his campaign wasn't going anywhere I turned my attention to Edwards and Obama. Hillary was my last choice, and, in all honesty, she didn't win my vote -- Obama simply lost it.

    It was apparent to me back in January that, spooked perhaps by the loss in New Hampshire, he was embarking on a strategy that would inevitably be extremely divisive. As it has proven to be. This is an observation that I make as a marketing professional -- not as a Clinton partisan. Playing to elite Democrats' class prejudices and to African Americans' political fears and paranoia by painting the Clintons as bamboozling racists (and implying thereby that Hillary Clinton's voters were racists) was a strategy that paid off short term, but also one that could only have very bad consequences, for party unity as well as for the Obama campaign itself, long term.

    I genuinely believe that if Obama had taken the high road, spoken out against the sexism exhibited in the media (as a sign of his support for women and their right to equal political participation, not as a defense of Hillary) and resisted the temptation to use race and paranoia as a political ploy, he would have the nomination in hand right now.

    The reason he doesn't is because he did divide the party. And there isn't anything any other politician, including Hillary Clinton, can do to put it back together again.

    If he believes he needs unity to win, he is going to have to win back the voters he had offended, run against, and disrespected. No one else can do that for him.


    Let me add something here (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by esmense on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:56:31 PM EST
    1.) It would have been quite possible for Obama to run against Hillary without running against the Clinton administration and conflating it with the Bush administration and its failures. Doing so would have put Obama in a much better position for the General Election, allowing him to ask voters to give him their trust not just on the basis of his personal experience (and brief resume) but also on the basis of their experience of the peace and prosperity of the his party's most recent time in power.

    2.) Calls for generational change, criticism of your own party's constituencies, rejection of your own party's most recent history, is just inherently divisive. It sets up a dichotomy of good guys on one side of the generational divide and bad guys on the other, good guys in one faction of the party and bad guys in the other. That doesn't mean it can't be an effective strategy. But, it can only be an effective strategy by attracting enough new voters to make up for the voters who that you choose to alienate and run against.

    You can't choose that strategy and then get or get offended and blame the people you strategically demonized in order to attract new voters for ending up feeling demonized and alienated.


    But (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by nell on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:21:10 PM EST
    the Rep. couldn't possibly use your one line statement because he doesn't believe it. if that was the reason behind the switch, he would have said it. in fact, very few obama supers say he would be a stronger president - they usually say something about ending the divisivness and how negative hillary is, blah, blah. he switched becuase he wants to be on the winning team and he wants to be part of the cash cow of the obama campaign. that is his right.

    The Reason Behind the Switch (none / 0) (#15)
    by creeper on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:31:43 PM EST
    Wouldn't you love to know what it really was?

    Not really, but I would like to see his (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:57:29 PM EST
    constituency respond to his comments in not contributing to his campaign, and not supporting his re-election.

    I wouldn't want someone who shows his "independent judgment" to be so seriously flawed.


    maybe he was spooked by Rush (none / 0) (#96)
    by diogenes on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:17:34 PM EST
    Since Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos consists of trying to drag out the nominating process as long as possible, maybe this guy wants to oppose Rush.  Isn't that usually a sign of good judgment?

    Translation (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by DCDemocrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:21:17 PM EST
    With Hillary out of the way, we can seat two more delegations dedicated to Obama.  The people of Florida and the people of Michigan can be represented with delegations, who though they do not represent the will of the voters, will bring the party together to join hands while we all sing, "Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya."

    Allow me to say 'wimps'. (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by ghost2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:33:25 PM EST
    Since dare I say 1980 (and perhaps before) that has been the pattern for democrats.  With the exception of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Carville, Joe Wilson, Wes Clark, and a few others, this is a party of wimps.  

    Notice that the fighters are in the Clinton camp.  

    I don't really know WTF is the problem.  I should write a diary about this.  Since no one has noticed that the prolonged primary doesn't benefit McCain at all. If Obama is the nominee, McCain has Florida secured, and will choose a VP to help him win Michigan, and the working class in PA, OH, MO.  If Hillary is the nominee, he'll go with Crist to secure Florida.  

    McCain can only win if he defines his opponent.  The prolong primary makes it very hard for him to do that, and come up with a good message of contrast.

    But Democrats like this SD are NOT fighters, they are whiners.  He is telling voters that despite Hillary's toughness, despite voters intent to vote, despite everything, he is just too chicken to have her back till the end.  How pathetic.  

    This is a huge problem.  Already Obama has a problem with looking tough, and the party is doing everything it can to look wimpy and disorganized.  How pathetic.  


    Bizarre Rationale (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by SpinDoctor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:24:12 PM EST
    I can't quite figure out what he meant either.  Though their is a report circulating that he is one of about 40 California delegates that have decided to switch from Clinton to Obama.  I hope they do a better job of explaining their decision.

    It's a politically correct version of WWTSBQ? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jawbone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:34:54 PM EST
    As mentioned, if she's out of the race, then the delegations can be declared to support the winner.



    He's the Canary in the Chicks' Can (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ellie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:09:17 PM EST
    Don't p!ss them off any more right now.

    Today's Trolling Points Memo has been rife with cautious messages that Hillary, a special historical candidate -- is that the word? it was hysterical yesterday? -- had a very marvellous, very special run which impressed us all, right everyone?

    But enough is enough, so Why Won't the Stupid B!tch Quit?


    I know this is off-topic (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:11:21 PM EST
    and I may be yelled at, but during an interview with Wolff Blitzer Hillary said in answer to no big deal that this is going on thru June, was that Bill clinched the nomination in June and Bobby Kennedy was still campaining in June 1968. Already a big uproar!!!

    Well, Let's Hope They Find Someone Who (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:25:51 PM EST
    would make a better representative to take Dennis' seat.  And by the way, who is he?  I lived in CA for many years and don't recall hearing his name...His rationale for this switch makes little sense unless he is looking for some press right now.  And, maybe we should check his bank statements... :)

    18th District (none / 0) (#20)
    by The Maven on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:35:24 PM EST
    Rep. Cardoza defeated Gary Condit in the 2002 Dem primary.  According to his campaign website, he's Co-Chair of the Blue Dog Coalition, although Wikipedia notes that this was during the last Congress, not the present one (he remains a member, nonetheless).

    Always So Much Easier To Win A Seat When (none / 0) (#53)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:02:14 PM EST
    you would be replacing someone who has had so many problems along with waaaaay too much bad press.  

    Thanks to all of you for your help in finding out who this guy is....you rock!


    I had to check also (none / 0) (#27)
    by nycstray on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:38:08 PM EST
    here's his district:


    heh, my whacky ex-brother in law is from there along with one of my close friends here.


    I don't even know what to say. (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by masslib on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:26:09 PM EST

    Money (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by margph on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:26:30 PM EST
    Wonder how much money he had "donated" to his campaign coffers.

    Without Making (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by The Maven on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:52:35 PM EST
    any further observation, here's his official FEC finances page, updated through May 14.  More than half of his campaign donations come from a wide variety of PACs and other committees, most seemingly in the Agriculture industry (Cardoza is on the Ag. Committee in the House).

    He's not even on the list (none / 0) (#57)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:05:14 PM EST
    of Obama or Clinton PAC donations. So, there must have been a promise of something.

    By whom? Clinton or Obama? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Bluebeard on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:35:45 PM EST
    Both have made those types of donations from their PACs -- as all major party figures have done over the last 20 years with their PACs.

    I've never seen any criticism of the practice by Clinton -- only that Obama also did so.


    Maybe... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by AmyinSC on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:01:36 PM EST
    Because Obama's donations FAR outweigh Clinton's.  Just sayin'.

    goes against the grain (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:26:40 PM EST
    of what they are supposed to do. This makes no sense to me. By all calculations Hillary is running better odds against McCain, has nearly the same or more pop votes, and is more popular in critical states. What i want to hear from SD's is Obama is a better candidate not the inevitable ca. The sd's are not performing as they were intended to in my opinion.

    The Fix Is In (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by creeper on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:34:01 PM EST
    for the nomination.  

    We're scr*wed.


    Exactly. The people are split. (none / 0) (#25)
    by masslib on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:37:51 PM EST
    The supers will nominate our nominee.  They are nominating Obama.

    you know i support (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:49:50 PM EST
    obama, but i also think the sd's are not sticking to what they were creatd to do

    You got that right (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Dr Molly on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:19:49 PM EST
    The appearance of this tactic is just really really bad.

    And the real translation of his statement is:  "I am switching my vote in order to help put an end to this painful exposure of how truly moronic the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Party are."


    it is a real vaccuum (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:42:20 PM EST
    how they are making the decisions. I would like to see some mass meetings of the sd's to hammer out the issues and endorsements that aren't pledged to end something. The party is split pretty evenly between the two and for an sd to endorse to facilitate an ending of something is ridiculous. We live in a capitocracy so I think it only fitting that demos are being swayed by donations from O's camp. I have argued for years that running elections based on donations is horrible. The sd's should be looking to the debates for their answers. Who is winning the debates? Who will debate against McCain more effectively. Who has the better policies for the party as a whole. How about a winner take all debate, that would do it for me.

    exactly! (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by Josey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:36:27 PM EST
    the SDs are supposed to use their superior judgment in selecting the "best" candidate that divides the Dem Party.

    Cardoza could at least have said (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:54:33 PM EST
    that he agrees with the One, the Obama, that he is so wise in the ways of politics and so prepared to be president that Obama said that super-delegates ought to vote as their states did.

    Oh, wait.  That argument won't work, either, for Cardoza.  But let's at least give him cred that he didn't say, as McCaskill did, that a teenager told her to vote for Obama.

    And these are our leaders in Congress.  We're f***ed.


    I dispise McCaskill. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by AX10 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:57:40 PM EST
    She said that Bill Clinton was a "racist".  This was on Ed Schultz's (Obama Mediawhore) show.
    I am all for ousting her in 2012.

    What (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:04:42 PM EST
    I understand MacCaskill has not liked Clinton since the Monica business; but to label him a racist is shameful.

    Well, then... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by NWHiker on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:10:35 PM EST
    Why did she accept fundraising help from the Clintons?

    That's rather despicable, in my book.


    The party (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:58:47 PM EST
    is full of wimps. There's nothing more to say about this kind of stuff. And then they'll all be whining in Nov.

    More pretzel logic (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by joanneleon on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:27:31 PM EST
    It's becoming a common thing from Obama supporters, new and old.

    the "unity" candidate can't unite us (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Josey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:27:32 PM EST
    but Obama's superdelegates can!
    OK - I got it now.

    This Is (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by creeper on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:29:16 PM EST
    just plain nuts.

    Yes he should have made a simplier statement (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by cannondaddy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:30:43 PM EST
    if he cannot express himself more clearly than that.  I think people are concerned about the tone Clinton is using to push seating is divisive.  I think you (BTD) would admit that even with full seating of both states as certified, it is highly unlikey she will get the nomination.  But many others think that she would get the nomination then.  

    Or Just Maybe... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by AmyinSC on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:06:41 PM EST
    He could have stayed with the candidate who WON CA!!!!

    But then again, that would mean Rockefeller and Byrd; Kenny, Kerry, and Patrick, along with many others, would have gone to CLinton, too.  I love how Obama INSISTA SDs go the way the voters vote, unless they pick HIM when he DIDN'T win!!!

    OK - I know a gazillion other people have said this already, but I am so disgusted, so frustrated, so angry at the DNC for the sheer betrayal of women and VOTERS they have demonstrated this year.  I never, ever thought the DEMS would act like this.  It has become abundantly clear that they are far more like the Reps than I ever wanted to know (and I am a LIFELONG Dem, and have been politically active for almost 35 yrs - just like Hillary!).  I grieve for what has my (former?) party has become...


    I believe that he's saying..... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Bluebeard on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:32:38 PM EST
    1.  Obama will be the nominee, regardless of whether there's a bloody fight about seating Michigan and Florida

    2.  Michigan and Florida will be seated in some fashion, for the good of the party -- again, regardless of whether Clinton's proposal is followed

    3.  Clinton's proposal requires breaking the rules that everyone agreed to

    4.  To avoid having a bloody but ultimately meaningless fight over how to seat Fla. and Mich., and allow the inevitable nominee to seat them on some sort of compromise basis without such a fight, I believe that the party should coalesce around the inevitable nominee now

    5.  It's only OK to "change the rules in the 4th quarter" so that there can be a compromise that helps the party, but not if that is part of a threat to try to change the outcome through an 11th-hour change in the rules

    Just my thoughts on what he's getting at.

    The voters will not coalesce around (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:37:57 PM EST
    the nominee if this isn't settled now.

    Let it go to the convention.  I'm in favor of that.


    He's only inevitable (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by stillife on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:45:22 PM EST
    if MI and FL don't count.

    Screwed up unfair manner? (none / 0) (#93)
    by IzikLA on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:18:17 AM EST
    Please, do tell me what would be fair, assuming the votes of millions of Americans is unfair?  I do love hearing this argument about how the rules are more important than the voters.  

    Yes, he will still have the delegate lead, BUT, it will slim the lead and call into question all sorts of other things.  That is, if the system of caucuses and delegates and popular vote and swing states and polls and superdelegates actually was working instead of being thwarted by party "leaders".


    In other words, he's saying that (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:59:32 PM EST
    the votes of the super-delegates will legitimize the candidacy of a nominee whose candidacy this guy wants to delegitimize by denying voters in two states so far -- plus let's have a pile-on of super-delegates to delegitimize two more states and a territory yet to vote.

    Those would be the much-despised-in-the-nutroots super-delegates.  Who would become the beloved super-delegates if they just do what the nutroots tell them to do.  But that still won't legitimize Obama's run with a lot of realspace voters.

    Somehow, I just don't see this guy's support as doing the job he was supposed to do here to  legitimize Obama's run.  But maybe it's just me and my silly wish for logical linearity.


    Yes. Better. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by oldpro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:36:31 PM EST

    But better.

    But still dumb.

    In other words (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by akaEloise on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:36:59 PM EST
    The appropriate way for the party to respond to dissenting voices and divergent opinions is to stick our fingers in our ears and sing LALALALALAICANNOTHEARYOU! in unison.

    Cardoza is my Congressman (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by myiq2xu on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:39:54 PM EST
    But he just lost my vote.

    BTW - He replaced Gary Condit.  He also owned the nightclub where I met my second wife.

    We must be neighbors... (none / 0) (#56)
    by k on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:05:13 PM EST
    He's my Congressman, too.  Everytime he blows his nose I get an email from him telling me about it. I think that for the first time I may just have to respond.

    As an aside, I skimmed a diary this morning at mydd that said something about 40 other SD's are about to follow his lead. I didn't spend too much time on it as it was a bit depressing.

    Seems like, as has been said here before, the fix is in.


    It may be time for Hillary (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:08:26 PM EST
    supporters to unite!!!

    No guts to stick it out. Obtuse and whimpy. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Saul on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:40:36 PM EST
    No matter how good Hilary looks in winning the GE, the supers do not have the guts of moving her way for fear of a looking like racist if they do not move to Obama.    I feel their decisions  in deciding have nothing to do with who has the better chance of winning the GE.  I don't think that is even in their minds.   Look at Byrd.  You know that in the back rooms he probably said,  

        Yeah Hilary won my state big time and I know I should follow the will of the people of my state by picking her and I also know that she is the better candidate overall to win the GE but if I vote for her I will look like a racist.

    Some super-delegates have guts (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:03:07 PM EST
    as she is gaining in that category, day by day -- I watch the tallies daily.  Not as many as he gets, but then, wasn't there supposed to be a sizeable flood of super-delegates to him at several different points, including after the Oregon primary?  Uh huh.

    It's just that, and I know this is shocking news, the news media rarely mention her gains in super-delegates.  Thus, my daily reality check to look up the numbers and track them for myself.  


    Super D's are in the tank for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by stillife on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:40:39 PM EST
    They don't need a good excuse.  Most of their stated reasons are lame ("Hillary is a great candidate, but Barack is just sooo inspiring!")  

    They want the nomination process to be over b/c they believe that once Obama has been anointed the nominee, the party base will fall into line.  

    They're in for a rude awakening.

    Obama will NOT have my vote. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by AX10 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:46:09 PM EST
    And, McCain is NOT the end of the world.
    He will be betterthan Bush.

    Obama supporters (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by OxyCon on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:43:41 PM EST
    ...want to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates, so long as the will of the voters in those two states doesn't count, because those voters overwhelmingly chose Hillary Clinton.

    No, How About POWER GRAB (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by fctchekr on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:47:34 PM EST
    He's playing the insiders game to take the nomination out of Clinton's hands. The supreme irony is that the DEMS are playing the old 2000 vote stakes, no counting of votes to disenfranchise their own party members. If that doesn't drive us away in droves, I don't know what else would....

    Hey BTD (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:49:07 PM EST
    Is the primary over?

    This question remains On Topic on this issue, in my opinion.

    I'm guessing Obama (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:56:18 PM EST
    doesn't like the proposed resolution to FL and MI?  

    That aside, can't someone teach these people how to make endorsements?  When they are weak, it reflects on the candidate.  People shouldn't scratch their heads and go 'wtf' when an endorsement comes out.  Give a decent sound clip for $#@@ sake.

    The presumption of GE voter compliance is a hoot (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Ellie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:56:29 PM EST
    The Dem "brand" (ugh) isn't exactly a big enough seller for the party to pull this lever and have the voters fall in line. (Who the hell ARE these people and do they have any passing acquaintance with reality in a wakeful state?)

    This pretense that Lack of Unity behind Obama was what's been sending doubt, anger and buyers' remorse though voter group after voter group insulted during this campaign is just breathtaking.


    And the "she is damaging" meme (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:11:27 PM EST
    that Clinton is hurting Obama, the Dems, truth and justice and the American Way, etc., by staying in the race -- add that, too, as an argument never made about the hundreds of men who have done so in past campaigns.  Oh, and that she will damage her own legacy and never be effective again by doing so -- although it didn't seem to hurt Teddy Kennedy who went all the way to the convention with far fewer delegates decades ago.

    Never, never, never do we see, even in the rare reportage and bloggage that recognize that she still could be the nominee, any similar discussion of the vast damage that Obama has done to her has the potential nominee.  Never.  Why not?  He is "hope and change"?  Ha.  

    He is a nasty, down and ridin' dirty Chicago machine politician, and so it goes -- he does what politicians do.  So he has done a lot of damage to other Dems now and throughout his career.  Chicago knows it; Chicago media report it.  Why are national media so scared to say it?  Frankly, it goes beyond explanation as simply Clinton hate or liberal guilt.  

    Something is up; something is in it for them, the only real reason media do what they do.


    That's an endorsement??? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by sleepingdogs on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:56:55 PM EST
    IMO, rather than go into this nonsensical explanation, he could have simply stated, "I am changing my support to Obama as is my right as a superdelegate."  End of story, end of statement.  If they can't state something positove about Obama as their reason, they should simply state their support for him and then shut the frick up!

    make it over before FL&MI counts (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by DandyTIger on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:00:16 PM EST
    Either this is just the old fashion jump on the bandwagon before it leaves the barn, or it's something a bit more cynical. That is, I fear a bunch of SD's will jump on to ensure that FL and MI vote counts won't make a difference. So if enough jump on and Obama has the magic number (minus FL and MI) and is declared the winner, then we can add FL and MI.

    I can see the reasoning here: let's make sure this is settled before we add MI and FL so there isn't an ugly fight, and then add FL and MI so those voters love us again. Maybe it will work. But I think it will leave an illegitimate nominee issue out there to fester.

    There's only one solution to Democrats having a chance for a legitimate candidate and at least a chance of uniting: count the voters in FL and MI right bloody now.

    May31 (none / 0) (#74)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:16:40 PM EST
    is an interesting date for the Rules & ByLaws Committee to meet. Is it a way of pre-empting the significance of the June 3 primary in PR?

    Actually (none / 0) (#94)
    by IzikLA on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:22:57 AM EST
    I kind of like this date.  PR is on June 1st and SD and MT are on June 3rd.  Assuming they actually do something on the 31st of May this may extend the magic number to 2210 instead of the generally accepted number of 2026 just in time to actually make it matter.  By a day, mind you, but I suppose better late than never.  Maybe.

    so the sd's are free to change...... (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by debbie f on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:03:10 PM EST
    this sounds at odds with changing the rules in the 4th quater doesn' it.... he was supporting hillary and then changed his rule- choice to support obama.unbelievable.
    i am at a loss, a depressing loss over this election. i geuss its because i am  44 yr old woman< who has a only a 2 yr degree in nursing> that i don't have the intelligence to figure out what i am missing

    I think I understand what he's saying... (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by Exeter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:07:36 PM EST

    He's saying:

    I prefer Hillary.

    I don't think Michigan and Florida should be added.

    I do, however, think that for general election purposes, they need to be seated.

    Solution: Super delegates, such as myself, go to Obama in droves making the effect of seating Michigan and Florida mute.

    I just want to know if this twit (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by arky on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:38:03 PM EST
    has actually read the rules??
    DNC Delegate Selection Rules:
    A. All candidates for delegate and alternate in caucuses, conventions, committees and on primary
    ballots shall be identified as to presidential preference or uncommitted status at all levels of a process which determines presidential preference.  
    "Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion
    that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters."

    Awarding him delegates would not reflect the legal and certified vote.

    Also see Rule 20.C.2. It covers penalties for awarding delegates in violation of Rule 13.

    Rule 20.C.1.b.
    "A Presidential candidate who campaigns in a
    state in violation of the timing provisions
    of the rules,... may NOT receive pledged
    delegates or delegate votes from that state."

    We all know that Obama had TV ads running in
    Florida and that he also held a press
    conference there. Both of those activities
    violate Rule 20.C.1.b.

    Both of these rules prohibit awarding Obama any delegates from Florida and Michigan.

    As for the timing of primaries rules...that'll be another post.

    I despise these people... (3.50 / 2) (#14)
    by NWHiker on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:31:20 PM EST
    ... I have no respect for someone who changes midstream like this. Zip. It's not like something horrid has come out (Clinton Eats Puppy Mill Puppies for Breakfast!), it's just pure political expediency.

    It also makes me sad. Our nominee is pathetic, even the people who are going to make the ultimate decision know it, yet they continue to switch to him. What does that say about them, Obama, and the the desire of Dems to actually like... win? in November?

    "Our Nominee" (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by creeper on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:39:37 PM EST
    Darn it, he is NOT our nominee!

    I dunno, creeper... (none / 0) (#36)
    by NWHiker on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:46:07 PM EST
    It looks like the SDs have made the choice. I know the convention hasn't happened yet, but all signs point that way.

    I'm beyond pissed and sad. I've stated before that I won't vote for him and I feel the same sick feeling that I had when I realised that we were nominating Kerry last time.

    On a more optimistic day, maybe I'll have more hopes for the convention, but the SDs have been going to Obama and all the switches have been C --> O, not the opposite. The fix is in.

    Still, this guy's statement is awful.


    I Hear You (none / 0) (#95)
    by creeper on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:03:59 AM EST
    I feel the same sick feeling that I had when I realised that we were nominating Kerry last time.

    I feel exactly the same as I did in January of 2004, walking home from the caucuses after Kerry had won Iowa.  I didn't think he had what it took to beat Bush.  Turned out I was right.

    I'd rather not be right again.


    it says (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Josey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:39:37 PM EST
    the elite Washington establishment that ran Obama has considerable persuasive powers - specifically among Congressional reps.

    Agreed. Every time an SD flips (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Valhalla on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:42:38 PM EST
    I think about the recent Battlestar episode where Athena's clone sisters ask her to lead the betrayal/rebellion against Six:

    "You guys make me sick.  You pick your side and you stick.  You don't cut and run when things get ugly.  Otherwise you'll never have anything."

    That's the DNC, gunning for never having anything.


    His statements are easily reconciled (1.00 / 2) (#77)
    by digdugboy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:39:53 PM EST
    if you use a little common sense. What he's saying is that FL and MI should be seated in a way that has a neutral effect on the current state of the nomination race. That's what would be fair. Clinton demands otherwise.

    That would advantage Obama (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by esmense on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:45:39 PM EST
    but it wouldn't be "fair." Unless, of course, you interpret "fair" to me whatever provides an advantage to Obama or in some way provides a penalty to Clinton.

    I'm downrating you (none / 0) (#89)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:52:34 PM EST
    Not because I don't agree with you - I don't - but because I think you should know by now that this kind of thing is pure flamebait.

    I think you degrade us all with coming up with this kind of baloney.


    Have to agree with you here, Big Tent D. (none / 0) (#55)
    by independent thinker on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:04:03 PM EST
    As an Obama supporter I am happy for every SD endorsement for Obama, but Rep. Dennis Cardoza's logic is seriously flawed. In essence we should not change the rules in mid-game, so let's change the rules in mid game. WTF?

    But in an odd kind of way that does sum up the situation we find ourselves in, doesn't it? Rules were established prior to the primary season which stated that only four states could hold contests in January. Two states violated those rules and became subject to penalties. And now we are stuck trying to find a way forward and out of this mess.

    actually 5 states (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:31:32 PM EST
    moved up and only FL and MI were punished. And even then the mighty "rulz" only said that they should be stripped of 1/2 their delegates. Do I have that right folks?

    IA, NH, SC, FL and MI moved up and only FL and MI were punished. And FL was moved up by the Republican legislature.


    Could we just draft a petition (none / 0) (#59)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:07:00 PM EST
    for Hillary to run as an independent american who wants as fair an election as this country can give the american people? Does that mean McCain could win in November? Without her, he wins anyway!

    She wouldn't (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by DJ on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:17:16 PM EST
    but I pray, PRAY that she will not take vp if offered and get away from Obama as soon as possible.
    If Obama loses in the GE which I think he will--Dean, Pelosi, Kerry, etc. and the SD's like this goober will have a little crow to eat.
    She would be able to do a lot of good in the senate.

    I'm a huge Hillary supporter (none / 0) (#68)
    by ChrisO on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:23:53 PM EST
    and I'm sticking with her until the end. But I think we've identified enough enemies in the party without declaring war on every SD who supports Obama. Implying that they were bribed is kind of scurrilous, absent any evidence. And excoriating them for following the political winds is kind of silly. Do we really think that all of Hillary's declared SDs supported her because they thought she was the best candidate, and none of them got on board because they assumed she'd be nominated and wanted to be on the winning team?

    As for SDs switching, yeah, I hate to see it too. But that's how deadlocked conventions get decided. Delegates start switching to the candidate who looks like the eventual winner. It's hardly unprecedented. And realistically, Obama right now looks like the clear winner. It hasn't happened yet, but I'm not so zealous that I can't be practical. If Hillary pulls it out I'll be thrilled, but it's certainly understandable why a politician would look at the situation and decide she can't win.

    Well Stated (none / 0) (#85)
    by IzikLA on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:13:24 PM EST
    And THIS is where all the Kool-Aid talk comes from.

    Well, at least the cretin's honest n/t (none / 0) (#90)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:53:42 PM EST

    i prefer the more PC: (none / 0) (#91)
    by cpinva on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:43:00 AM EST
    "intellectually challenged", it gives it almost the patina of a treatable mental impairment.

    You'll excuse me, but I despise stupidity um, lack of intelligence.

    yeah, obtuse was pretty much my first thought, upon reading it. my second thought: wtf is he talking about?

    in a couple of paragraphs, he essentially said: "i have no good reason for switching, other than i want to be on what i think is the winning side."

    see, wasn't that a lot shorter? of course, it was also honest, clearly an impediment to any politician.

    Switching to Obama is Capitulation to the Repugs (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ramonito on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:56:59 AM EST
    Knowing the obvious, an Obama's predictable defeat in November (Repugs political strategists are already boasting at Politico.com today)I find this Cardoza switch a cowardly act intended to send a message not to democratic voters but McCain with a huge white flag waving. These disgusting act by "Surrender Monkeys" among Democratic Congressional Members and DNC functionaries must be repudiated by voting them out of office this November!