Hillary Picks Up Guam and Georgia Delegate

Barack Obama won the Guam caucuses by 7 votes. Pilar Lujan won the caucuses for chair of Guam's Democratic party. She had been uncommitted.

Friday, she announced she is supporting Hillary. That means Guam's delegates are split 4-4. There is one superdelegate left, Guam Senator Ben Pangelinan , who hasn't yet declared.

Obama's Guam campaign complained about Lujan's endorsement, saying she had promised to go with the popular vote and while 7 votes isn't much, she still should have honored it. Thay asked her to reconsider.

I thought Obama's camp thought the popular vote didn't matter. They didn't complain when John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and several others endorsed him despite the preferences of the majority of their states' voters for Hillary.

In endorsing Hillary, Lujan said: [More..]

After taking a close look at the candidates in this race, I was more impressed by Senator Clinton's ability to meet the challenges of the presidency: end the war, reinvigorate the economy, and provide universal healthcare."

She also stated of Clinton, "When she becomes the first woman president, she will think of the people of Guam and their aspirations."

Lujan also appreciated the personal touch Hillary extended to her in two phone calls. She says Hillary will do more for Guam as President.

Hillary also got the vote of Georgia add-on delegate Verna Cleveland.

Obama picked up 4 delegates Saturday, two from Alaska and 1 from Wyoming and Georgia.

< Overnight Open Thread | Obama Calls FL/MI A Clinton-Contrived Controversy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I love hearing the news from Guam. (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Cheryl on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:38:27 AM EST
    So heartening to know there are supers out there who still think for themselves and are able to decide what's best. The two phones call from Hillary are interesting. She's working it! Go Hillary!

    I wonder how much MSM is (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by oculus on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:40:17 AM EST
    available in Guam?

    If Guam matters, then Puerto Rico (5.00 / 8) (#21)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:55:13 AM EST
    matters.  This is great.  The Obamans just did in the meme they're trying to spread that says Puerto Rico doesn't matter because it's a territory so doesn't vote in the general election.

    Ditto for Guam.  So Obama wants the territories only for delegates, for himself, and not for the sake of voters, democracy, blah blah it'sallaboutObama.


    I love the logic (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by mulletov cocktails on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:53:31 AM EST
    of the Barack camp.  Let's p!ss away the blue collar vote and moan about entities that won't help him beat Mcsame come Nov.

    And Wow (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by IzikLA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:41:36 AM EST
    A superdelegate endorsement based on something other than "well, it looks like said candidate will be the nominee so it's time to show solidarity"...

    Isn't this what they are actually supposed to be doing??!!!!


    Winning the presidency for the Democratic Party (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by andrelee on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:06:42 AM EST
    by choosing the person with the best chance of winning according to any and all available measures is what they're supposed to do...their creation being a response to the McGovern blowout. That's it. Just because they can do something else, i.e. pick a candidate based on things other than strong measures of electability-polls for ex., doesn't mean that's what they should be focusing on. Hence the need for strong independent minded SD's with a focus on winning the presidency. If a comment from an SD about their reasons for supporting OB or HC reflects some focus other than this, it will bother folks (like some here on TL and myself) whose focus is wanting a Dem to win in Nov. Maybe not so much for SOME folks focused on OB winning the nom. and beating HC.

    Feels good to know that many have not (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by felizarte on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:36:38 AM EST
    been swept by Obama's "inevitability."  Does anyone know whatever happened to the Guam recount?

    headlines notwithstanding... (1.00 / 1) (#121)
    by diogenes on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:13:01 PM EST
    The title of this notwithstanding, it seems that Obama picked up four supers to Hillary's two.  That's a good day for Obama.
    The rules of this site say that you can't bash Hillary, but calling Obama "McGovern" in multiple posts is fair play.  I wonder if it will still be fair play if it's a McCain/Obama race after the convention?

    Interesting . . . (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by nycstray on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:59:14 AM EST
    Her reasons actually have some substance. Made me think of the CA guy who switched to Obama, not so much.

    I seem to recall (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by LoisInCo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:10:20 AM EST
    Bill Richardson making the same promise and then endorsing Obama after Clinton won. Personally I'd rather have Lujan anyway!

    Yeah, well (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by IzikLA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:45:31 AM EST
    Bill Richardson's reason for endorsing was insulting.  

    If I recall, something along the line of "this is a once in a lifetime candidate" and... well, that was about it... When there are no  better reasons than general hopes then that is very disappointing...


    None Of The Obama Polls Listing Various (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:20:42 AM EST
    VP match ups have Richardson's name on them. I wonder if he got thrown under the bus to.

    Rare occasion of someone throwing himself (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by ruffian on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:31:05 AM EST
    under the bus - by acting like a doofus.

    This whole thing is ugly. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by knowshon on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:29:06 AM EST
    YOU know it.  I know it.  I wont say who I am for.  I will be shotdown either way.  I have no problem with the debate goin on.  But my prob is when it goes beyond that.

    KO angered me beyond the pale.  I hate the Siftboat reference but maybe it is so.  He goes on and on with his anger.  Does he want to win the election with such anger?

    Show me an example (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:31:12 AM EST
    when Obama or his people don't COMPLAIN or WHINE?

    THIS is NOT the kind of leadership this country needs.  Victims all around!

    This kind of whining "has no place in (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by oculus on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:34:41 AM EST
    this campaign."

    No one has done for for whining (4.90 / 10) (#44)
    by RalphB on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:38:25 AM EST
    than Barack Obama   :-)

    please stay on topic (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:41:08 AM EST
    there is an open thread going elsewhere.

    'Night everyone.

    If I Missed This... (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by AmyinSC on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:01:08 AM EST
    I apologize, but WHAT was the outcome of the Guam RECOUNT???  They had all of those spolied ballots (in a strong Clinton district, of course), and I keep seeing that Obama won by those 7 votes.  Does ANYONE know what happened with that??

    And along those lines this PR meme is simply REPREHENSIBLE.  I am sick and tired of the Obama camp's convulted attempts to minimize ANYTHING that supports Clinton, and the lengths to which they go to try and prove it!  I have never seen such nonsensical, ILLOGICAL drivel and this recent attempt to discount Puerto Rico is insulting.

    I was googling for the recount vote count for Guam (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by jawbone on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:14:05 AM EST
    and couldn't find anything. The recount did take place? or not?

    I have been curious, especially about all those "spoiled" and missing (iirc?) ballots.


    "Waaaaaaah, but you PROMISED!" (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:13:44 AM EST

    Someone needs to change the Obama campaign's diapers already.

    Ted Kennedy's Legacy will depend on how he (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by carmel on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:18:08 AM EST
    handles the upcoming convention battle. First of all, Kennedy should be backing Hillary, since she won his state. Second of all, does Kennedy want to be remembered for pushing a candidate who seems to be McGovern/Nixon combined, or standing with Hillary, the first woman president who has worked her heart out to win this nomination and to win the hearts of the American people and the popular vote. It's time for the super d's to stand up to the Chicago combine and Obama money, and do what's best for the democratic party. Donna Brazile should be forced to resign her position from the DNC for saying democrats don't need or want working class voters, latinos, Catholics or Jews, or women. And that pompous blowhard Keith Olbermann should watch the movie "Scanners" because he is in danger of blowing his top.

    I'm from Massachusetts, (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by samanthasmom on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:19:02 AM EST
    and I am very disappointed that Senator Kennedy chose not to support Hillary.  However, he is doing what SD's are supposed to do. I disagree with his choice, but not with the process.  When he made his decision, I was one of the many who wailed against it, but I want other SD's to vote their conscience so I need to respect what he did. Senator Kennedy's legacy will be rich with so many other things that this will be a small blip.  His name appears on almost every piece of employment legislation that has benefited workers in last 40 years.  Although I strongly object to the way that No Child Left Behind has been implemented, I agree heartily with its premise.  Its failures have opened a dialogue that has been sorely needed in almost every school district in the country. While I wish that he had not let his differences with the Clintons color what he has said about Hillary during this primary season to the point that he has, I'm going to give him the benefit of "it's the tumor talking". My mom had a brain tumor, and the things that came out of her mouth at the end were not hers. I hope that his health allows him to attend the convention in August.

    Ted Kennedy's Legacy is Chapaquidick (none / 0) (#122)
    by Folkwolf101 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:50:53 PM EST
    At least one legacy for the Kennedys is Misogyny. As much as we loved JFK and RFK, there is no denying the hatred that many in the Kennedy clan have displayed toward women. Think about the Kennedys' history of adultery, rape, Chapaquidick, William Kennedy Smith, and the Kennedy given 25 years for murdering a woman, to name only the first episodes to mind. It is neither a shock nor a surprise that Teddy Kennedy did not see nor respect the significance of a female candidate of Hillary's stature. As great a man as this Kennedy has been, Teddy's concerns have never extended toward women's empowerment.

    selected whining. (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by pluege on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:24:05 AM EST
    there's not much that compares.

    i love the argument of the Obamacans trumpeting their idol's honesty, straightforwardness, and purity...and yet...the Obama campaign steeped in hypocrisy.

    More news you won't hear from the MSM... (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by pluege on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:27:12 AM EST
    or the wingnut progressive blogs:

    HRC picking up delegates.

    Another SD hint, hint (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:28:49 AM EST
    LONDON (Reuters) - Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said on Sunday he expects Democratic superdelegates to reveal their choice for presidential nominee soon after the final primary in June and that Hillary Clinton will then have to quit the race.

    n an interview with Sky News, Carter said he did not think Clinton was achieving anything by staying in the fight.

    So I am thru defending Carter and his legacy and his talk with Hamas, etc.  Also no more of my pittances to The Carter Center.  And the next time I get a begging letter, I shall tell them why:  Hillary is achieving something for her women (and other) supporters, trying to make sure we are counted.  Wonder what his mother would have thought of Obama's campaign?

    Of course, (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:31:39 AM EST
    we all remember that votes are not actually counted till roll call.

    a letter to a president (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:29:09 AM EST
    Dear Mr. President,

    May I suggest that you take those blinders off?  You are quoted as saying Clinton is not achieving anything by staying in the race.  You are badly mistaken, sir!  Clinton is advancing the dreams of women in the United States by continuing in the race.  She is also an historic candidate, in addition to being by far the most qualified candidate.   If  the DNC choose to run a weak candidate this year, they will not be aided by women who blindly follow sexist, anti-Clinton leadership.

    Before saying that Clinton is not achieving anything.,  you should perhaps have looked at her primary statistics among women (and the non-black working class also).  Will we go  back to a democratic party that has allowed a hateful, disparaging tone to be used toward women and the Appalachian working class voters?  No, sir!  And threats about Roe vs. Wade and SCOTUS are not enough to bring us back.  Nor will aspersions cast against us as being racist change our mind.  We marched with MLK, but we will not pull a lever nor punch a card for Obama, who has consistently denigrated a gracious, intelligent, inspiring human being who happens to be a woman.  Oh, have you ever wondered who your mother would have backed?

    The Carter Center will not get my small contribution again; there are other organizations that are working for the common good just as effectively.


    Oh No He Didn't....Then Hillary Needs Her (4.87 / 8) (#2)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:19:55 AM EST
    delegates back in the states she has won...RIGHT NOW!!

    I cannot believe the obama camp had the audacity to say that!

    If every super voted the way their district (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:49:50 AM EST
    or state voted, then Hillary would take the clear majority

    They can't now complain about this


    Did you all miss this part? (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by minordomo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:43:56 AM EST
    At the time of her candidacy she did say her vote would reflect the majority of the Democrats that participated in the caucus

    That is not the same argument as claiming that any/every superdelegate should vote according to the way their district voted.

    Personally I think it's a misstep because Obama doesn't need to haggle over a single delegate at this point, but I did want to point out that inconsistency in the commenters' logic here.


    I'm sure she did (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by MaxUS on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:27:05 AM EST
    and John Lewis said he was for Hillary before he was for Obama and Lee said she was for Clinton before the primaries in Texas (and still is ATM despite reportedly immense pressure for her to vote for the Black guy)...and and and well, the bottom line is that SDs make up and change their minds all the time and because of the nature of their position as SDs they are free to do so for whatever reason.

    It is possible that despite what she said, she became convinced that voting her conscience was paramount or politically advantageous for her continuing in her position as an elected official. Given the hinky nature of caucuses, I don't find it unlikely that this is the case.

    Nevertheless, ultimately, it is for the people who elected her to decide if she represents their will and it is up to them dole out any consequences if they feel any are appropriate.


    While she won the chair for their Caucuses (4.00 / 1) (#72)
    by nycstray on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:07:00 AM EST
    could it be perhaps her district went for Clinton?

    Honestly, 7 votes is kinda slim so it would seem to make the majority more of a tie when it comes to conviction of a delegate deciding what to do. But then that opens up the argument of what's a big enough margin.

    I agree on the misstep. I'm surprised they went there. But I'm also curious as to the level they are still contesting issues with Clinton if he has this in the bag. I'm pretty sure they'll give him the nom, but his actions make me curious.


    It's possible that - (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by minordomo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:19:55 AM EST
    - this was just a comment at a local level that was blown out of proportion.

    Incredible. Absolutely Love It!!! (none / 0) (#10)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:34:33 AM EST
    Jeebus, (4.83 / 6) (#1)
    by hlr on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:16:42 AM EST
    what doesn't Obama whine about?

    Obama Does Whine (none / 0) (#123)
    by Folkwolf101 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:08:33 PM EST
    Obama whined when he finally had tough questions in the last debate and vowed never to agree to another debate with Hillary because "this style of politics" is what he wants to change. He whines when people ask for descriptions to his proposed changes. He whines when reporters ask for basic descriptions of any of his so-called plans for change. He whines racism while also saying that race has not played a part of his campaign.  Usually, though, Obama whines on the sly by having his henchmen do all the whining for him. Thus, his campaign staff are allowed to whine and whine and whine nonstop.  Check this out:

    There are more important things to blog about. (2.33 / 3) (#4)
    by Addison on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:23:28 AM EST
    ...superdelegates can vote any which way they want. Obama's Guam campaign shouldn't have bothered whining about this. But, seriously, this is a post entirely devoid of issues or meaning for anyone on Earth or America.

    That sounds harsh, but if you look at the "relevancy" batting average of other blogs, this one is doing pretty well lately. So a post like this is noticeable.

    The two sides are fighting as hard as they can. Those fights are often silly and subject to ridicule. But the point is that no one can expect them not to fight. Hillary or Obama. They're going to fight.

    Jeralyn's blog... (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:29:42 AM EST
    if she thinks it's relevant or interesting, she can post it.

    Me thinks (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by IzikLA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:51:57 AM EST
    That the point is, if this nomination is SOOO SOOO in the bag, as we keep hearing over and over again, then WHY are they even discussing the actions of one single superdelegate in a territory where the popular vote difference was only 7 votes.

    Point being --- It's Ain't Over Yet.


    True enough. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Addison on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:30:54 AM EST
    disagree (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:30:24 AM EST
    this post contains news. It is not irrelvant.

    Superdelegates can switch their vote any time up until the convention.

    How they turn from now through the end of the primaries may be indicative of what they think Hillary's chances still are and that they place import on the popular vote.

    This is very relevant.


    That is true, yes... (1.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Addison on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:33:43 AM EST
    ...but talking about Obama's Guam campaign fighting for delegates in a way that pretends they're not going to fight for every delegate, I don't see that as interesting, new, or helpful for Hillary.

    My comment should mostly be taken as a comment suggesting that Hillary has better arguments at her disposal than this one.


    You apparently impute that (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:27:26 AM EST
    a delegate from Guam is lesser than a delegate from, oh, your state?  Please explain.

    Very fair point... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Addison on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:51:12 AM EST
    The Guam delegates are clearly just as important in the nomination process as any other. 1=1, after all. But in the general election argument they are not important. Stark truth, but true. If we are talking about winning in November, Guam is a sideshow. Puerto Rico is a sideshow. I, actually, think Guam, Puerto Rico, etc. should have voting rights and representation in the Congress and in our electoral college. That isn't a fact, yet.

    I am talking about the level of interest taken as far as the Democratic nomination process on this blog, as is (I think) the right of a comment here. The interest taken in Guam here runs contrary to the interest taken, for electoral college interests, in Florida and Ohio. That was why I italicized Guam.

    The sooner a bill is passed for Guam, Puerto Rico, etc. to receive full rights, however, the sooner I'll support it.


    The nomination process is still going on... (none / 0) (#69)
    by reynwrap582 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:22:42 AM EST
    Guam and Puerto Rico are very important simply because they haven't received GE representation.  Calling them a sideshow?  If anything, their primaries are even more important than the states' BECAUSE they don't have representation in the GE.  This is the only election they can take part in, the only one where they possibly have any say, which is very unfortunate.  They should have GE representation, but they don't, which makes whatever voice they have in the primary even more important to the process.

    Just because Guam and PR don't fall in with the electoral college arguments, doesn't mean that their importance in other ways are irrelevant.  This isn't the electoral college blog. If it was, you might have a point.  This blog focuses on a number of issues relating to the nomination process and the GE, I don't see how this post is an outlier.

    I know you're trying to be very diplomatic in your wording, but it just rubs me the wrong way.


    No, you're talking nonsense (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:48:59 AM EST
    as a regular reader or one willing to simply search archives would know.  There have been many, many posts dealing with FL, OH, etc.

    So you're still simply posturing to make some point -- the point apparently to be p*ssy to Jeralyn.  Why not just go away from the keyboard and kick the wall.  It would be better manners and save bandwidth.


    So let me get this straight... (none / 0) (#78)
    by IzikLA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:55:55 AM EST
    It's not about Delegates, and JUST delegates, after all??

    You mean, it's not ALL about the Math??!!!

    How very enlightening!!!


    Its not the Size of the delegate count (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by WelshWoman on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:00:04 AM EST
    that matters its the QUALITY of the Electoral map

    I don't expect that... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Addison on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:50:12 AM EST
    ...but comments are enabled for a reason. And that reason is discussion about the thing blogged upon.

    Also, if you have more important (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:31:11 AM EST
    things to write about, you should start your own blog.

    I'm a much better commenter... (1.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Addison on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:35:15 AM EST
    ...than a blogger.

    And if that's your honest reaction, I'm sorry for my comment. This is your blog and you can do with it what you wish.


    I don't believe Jeralyn needs your permission. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by rooge04 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:59:59 AM EST
    However, funny how it's news when Obama delegates endorse.

    Also funny is how delegates should follow the pop vote except when the people vote for Clinton...when they shouldn't.


    Well... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Addison on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:06:49 AM EST
    ...half of your comment has nothing to do with what I believe or said in my comment.

    As far as your subject line, however, this is Jeralyn's blog. It is not neutral, and God bless her for constantly noting that. It is hers. This is her blog. All honest posters respect that. We all publish our comments to further her blog. Only a troll would publish comments to drag it down. I am not commenting to hurt her blog or damage its reputation. I'm engaging it to strengthen it.  


    Based on the evidence here (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:28:25 AM EST
    of your comments, odds are good that you'd be a better blogger.

    Is this snark? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Addison on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:56:15 AM EST
    I can't tell. I can't tell if you're saying I'm a terrible commenter, and therefore my blog would be better, or whatever. That doesn't make much sense; a poor commenter would be a terrible blogger. There are people who are really good bloggers, there are people who are better at commenting, I'm the latter. I don't want to blog, yet, I don't have the stamina necessary to constantly update like the good bloggers do. If you're merely talking about me being an idiot, or without integrity, that's maybe a different discussion. I think I've proven otherwise.

    you're okay Addison (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:01:08 AM EST
    most of the time. Don't take offense. We like you here.

    And let me say, Jeralyn... (5.00 / 8) (#57)
    by Addison on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:10:19 AM EST
    ...it's so much easier to post here as a pro-Obama person than it is to post at Dailykos. That's come up before here, wherein I am viewed positively for posting here even though it must be "hard" for me to do so. Nonsense. Dailykos is the hardest place for me to comment on anything as a pro-Obama voter. You run a good blog, God knows I have disagreements with the focus sometimes, but this is a more rational place. So, thanks. A lot.

    Politics (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Grace on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:17:49 AM EST
    are all about disagreements.  It takes a serious person to come and debate facts.  

    I enjoy reading your comments n/t (none / 0) (#93)
    by Mary Mary on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:47:17 AM EST
    actually, you aren't. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by cpinva on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:30:57 AM EST
    I'm a much better commenter...

    if you were, you would have commented on the point that was being made in the post by jeralyn: that the obama campaign, having previously derided the importance of the popular vote, is now complaining because the delegate in question didn't support the winner (by a huge 7 votes!) of said popular vote.

    that seemed to elude you completely. instead, you went on a totally irrelevant tangent, having no bearing on the issue at hand.

    whether or not guam, or PR for that matter, is a factor in the GE has nothing whatever to do with the topic of this thread.

    perhaps a refresher in reading comprehension might be in order, before you respond again.


    sigh... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Addison on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:34:42 AM EST
    ...both campaigns have been a little two-faced in their arguments. This should be a realization of both sides, and not the basis of a misdirection about the intentions of commenters.

    My initial comment was about the post. The comment you responded to was to the comment I responded to. Conflation convinces no one you want to convince.


    Zzzzzzzzz (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by english teacher on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:46:04 AM EST
    Unhelpful... (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Addison on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:49:20 AM EST
    ...I am the most honest pro-Obama supporter on this blog you're likely to encounter. You've top-rated my comments before. Talkleft will not get better through this sort of "Zzzzz" disengagement. I'm not commenting to pull some psychological mind-game on y'all, you know.

    Ugh... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Addison on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:51:59 AM EST
    ...and though it saddens me, because it'll mean I won't get to comment more, this has become a distraction and a thread hijack. I am not a dishonest poster, I'm not a troll, and that's that. Anything further, apart from some thread wherein this topic is more directly addressed, I will have nothing more to say.

    Personally (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by IzikLA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:11:43 AM EST
    I will take you at your word.

    I am a casual TalkLeft commenter and I view often.  I was literally chased off of the "other" blogs for simply replying to one or two people that had the audacity to ask such things as "please tell me how Clinton could possibly win this thing".  And this was in March before she won OH, PA, IN, KY, WV, RI.   I was told that I had absolutely no intelligence or any kind of rational thought whatsoever.  And that is putting it mildly.

    In my opinion, Obama supporters are way more than welcome if they are not unreasonable.  I may disagree with you but if none of us have a chance to REASONABLY discuss and disagree with the other side then we can never convince anyone of a different viewpoint and, even more importantly, we will never achieve this Unity which we all talk about.


    Sometimes things get a life of their own.... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:49:26 AM EST
    ..you're okay Addison. As my mom used to say, this too shall pass. ;-)

    yes i enjoy reading you (none / 0) (#108)
    by lilburro on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:12:27 AM EST
    don't go anywhere !

    no, it wasn't. (none / 0) (#112)
    by cpinva on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:13:02 AM EST
    My initial comment was about the post. The comment you responded to was to the comment I responded to. Conflation convinces no one you want to convince.

    though by now you've probably convinced yourself it was. geez, don't you even bother to read what you write, or is just stream of consciousness blathering?

    before you try to use big words again, use the dictionary and find out what they mean first.


    "waiter, may i have a side-order of eye-roll with that plate of sigh?"

    jeralyn and others may find you "interesting", possibly "entertaining". myself, i find you effete, trifling and, worse, boring.

    but hey, everyone needs a hobby, right?


    This isn't DailyKooks (none / 0) (#116)
    by deathofrock on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:35:22 AM EST
    I think we should be nice to Obama's supporters on this blog. We were all chased from that other place very rudely.

    Turn the other cheek. Remember, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

    Go Hillary!:)


    "I'm a much better commenter..." (none / 0) (#105)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:48:40 AM EST

    I think the majority of your complaints would justify disagreeing with your contention that you're a better commenter.

    And how is this not news for us?  Some of us will find this info only here or only at Taylor Marsh because no one else would report it.  And some of us greatly appreciate Jeralyn for her tireless committment to reporting on Clinton rather than slobbering all over Obama (at the moment) like the MSM is doing.


    Obamamites have spread the conspiracy (5.00 / 7) (#46)
    by Josey on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:40:03 AM EST
    that the Clintons are fighting for superdelegates in some kind of unethical backroom way and are trying to steal the nomination from Obama. (gasp!) They usually imply that Obama isn't "fighting" for delegates - they're just flocking to him ethically because of his brilliance. lol
    The reality is Obama is the Washington establishment candidate and has more "deals" to offer amidst pressure - "we must unite now or the party is doomed in the GE." However, Obama's endorsers rarely cite substance in making their case for him - other than he's a rockstar and money generator. Bingo! They rarely mention anything about his positions on the issues.

    Hillary's endorsers usually cite her substance and knowledge of the issues - just the opposite of empty hopity hope and change.

    >>>Lujan said: "After taking a close look at the candidates in this race, I was more impressed by Senator Clinton's ability to meet the challenges of the presidency: end the war, reinvigorate the economy, and provide universal healthcare."


    I believe that... (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Addison on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:59:41 AM EST
    ...here any mention of "conspiracy" by anyone is stupid. Both campaigns should try to win over the superdelegates. Psychologically they are less important than the pledged delegates, but factually and for the purposes of the current (idiotic) process we have now and must exist within, they are equally as valid. Both sides must fight for them.

    Bottom line: (1.00 / 0) (#15)
    by EddieInCA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:48:23 AM EST
    Obama picked up four today.

    Clinton picked up two.

    Is that right?

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:53:52 AM EST
    Of course, three of them were from Alaska and Wyoming -- neither of which will go Democratic in November.

    Also, Obama picking up superdelegates in states he won is not big news.  Hillary picking up any superdelegates from now on is big news, because it's a sign they believe she is more electable in November or that they believe the popular vote counts as well as delegate totals in picking the nominee.

    I only included the Obama add-ons to be factually accurate/complete. It didn't mean I found it relevant.


    Of course... (none / 0) (#25)
    by EddieInCA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:00:24 AM EST
    ... you have supporters of Clinton on this blog claiming that California is in play if Obama is the nomination, so forgive me if I don't buy into your hypothesis that Alaska and Wyoming can't go Democratic.

    I'm a strong believer in Dean's 50 state strategy.  It's already shown it's worthiness in the recent three house elections - DEEP red districts that voted for Dems, so forgive me if I don't buy into your hypothesis that Alaska and Wyoming can't go Democratic.

    I have much more faith in the Democratic Party and the American people than that


    No, I have said (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:02:53 AM EST
    repeatedly that either candidate will take CA -- it's one of the 15 safe states for Dems. Commenters don't speak for me or TalkLeft.

    Which is why I said... (none / 0) (#30)
    by EddieInCA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:11:13 AM EST
    "supporters of Clinton on this blog."

    I apologize if it came across as an attack on you.

    However, I still do not believe your theory that Alaska or Wyoming is in play.  McCain has had a three month free pass, and has been unable to put a dent in either Obama or Clinton.

    When the Democratic party reunites - and it will, make no mistake about it - it will destroy McCain in the fall. Money, energy, policy, enthusiasm, turnout, will on be on the Dem side.

    Look at the current polls on open and endangered Senate seats.  Virtual unknown dems are challenging and seriously beating some very well known Republican incumbents.

    It's a change election, and that doesn't bode well for incumbents. And like it or not, McCain will be burdened with the Bush record that he can't run from - or risk losing the 29% - the hardcore Republican base - that think that Bush is doing a good job.


    Can't get past your line (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:30:38 AM EST
    about an alleged theory of Jeralyn's.  It's the opposite of what she said.  So just like yours, my reading comprehension skills failed me for the rest of your comment.  I had read enough to know that you're just being combative, with no real interest in engaging others here.  Take it elsewhere.

    you are also going off topic (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:39:51 AM EST
    the topic is today's superdelegate choices.

    I think (none / 0) (#60)
    by Grace on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:20:37 AM EST
    California will be in play -- but I believe we won't see that until closer to November.  

    I live in los Angeles.  I don't believe people in this area are going to go overwhelmingly for Obama.  


    Didn't one of those 3 (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by nycstray on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:10:14 AM EST
    have to run ads distancing them self from Obama?

    but the 3 Dems who won special elections (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Josey on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:15:10 AM EST
    in Repub territories weren't members of Wright's church for 20 years. The MS rep released a statement reassuring his constituents he did not know Obama.

    California (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by deathofrock on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:40:48 AM EST
    I'm a 23 year old democrat-for-life who will be voting for McCain if Obama is president. I live in Palm Springs, CA. All of my friends (also life-long dems) are also voting for McCain.

    I'm tired of seeing a more qualified female candidate being turned down for an under-qualified male candidate.

    My family in Georgia is also going to vote for McCain. It's because of RUDE Obama supporters that I can not vote for him.

    We have been humiliated, ridiculed and denigrated for so long I'd almost take a third Bush term before voting for Obama.

    California will be in play because I will volunteer my time for McCain, as I did for Dean, Kerry and Gore in CA and GA. My friends will do the same.


    Nominee (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by deathofrock on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:44:42 AM EST
    I meant to say nominee above, not president.

    I truly am praying and hoping from the bottom of my heart that we choose a winner this time.

    PS - I was a Deaniac in 04, and I was really sad when we picked Kerry over Dean, but I still went and voted for Kerry! I won't make that mistake again.  It's time to give our party a spanking and to get rid of Donna Brazile!

    Go Hillary!


    You mean the 48 state strategy. (none / 0) (#31)
    by rooge04 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:12:48 AM EST
    Yes the 48 state strategy (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by IzikLA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:17:11 AM EST
    For the first time today I received a mailer from the DNC.  I can only imagine that I received this because I have contributed to Hillary.  They included a Hillary note within it.  However, there was a questionnaire that seemed so slanted to Obama.  And, I'm sure many others have received this, but the questionnaire had the audacity to discuss this so called "50-state strategy" and whether we supported it or not.  Give me a freakin' break!!!!  The only one NOT supporting it is the DNC!!!$%(*##@@@!!!!

    The Only Comments I Have Seen (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jane in CA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:17:19 AM EST
    about California being in play (made by myself and other commenters here) have been with regard to the disenfranchisement of latinos from the Dem party, per Donna Brazile.  The commentary has been more speculative than declarative, i.e. if the GOP can effectively spin the Donna B comments to energize the latino base, even CA could come into play.

    But, hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a great accusation.


    BTD stated recently only a fool would (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:33:50 AM EST
    think CA would be in play this GE.  But many of us Californias weren't so sure.  

    I worked at a company (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Grace on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:31:22 AM EST
    where I supervised Hispanics, Armenians, Indians, Asians, whites and vocal white rednecks from the deep South.  

    At one point, I wanted to hire a black girl who we got as a temp.  I really liked her because she was really spunky.  The Hispanics that I supervised actively lobbied against hiring her.  They had worked with blacks before and felt blacks were lazy.  Seriously.  I ended up not hiring her because they were really against it and I thought it wouldn't create a happy environment.  

    I think California will be at play in the General Election because of our heavy immigrant population.  A lot of people polled won't say what they really think.  Hispanics may overwhelmingly say they are for Obama but I believe they will vote against him in the voting booth.      


    Sorry the stereotypical thinking of that group (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by andrys on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:08:15 AM EST
    of employees against your applicant did prevail.  In fact, it's illegal in California, or used to be, to not hire someone on that basis, and I think I'd remove the evidence.  I realize you want to keep your staff happy and all that, but that was hard to read.  (Apologies for adding to off-topic stuff but I had to say it.)

    Yeah (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jane in CA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:53:30 AM EST
    I respect BTD's political acumen but, like you, am not convinced in my bones that the GOP couldn't make a compelling case to the "under the bus" constituencies in CA. I still think CA's viability in the GE is conditional on whether the GOP is able to build an convincing narrative that delineates the exclusionary nature of the new Dem party with regard to latinos. Not an easy task but not, I think, an impossible one either.

    More than just Latinos (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by nycstray on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:46:58 AM EST
    and McCain is going to make a play for CA. He can get mod Dems, seniors and under the bus demos. McCain and Hillary have/will do what Obama hasn't shown a lot of, door to door hands on and really connecting to voter demographics. McCain will also be more specific, I think, on certain issues. And while folks might not be 100% behind everything he says, at least they will know what he's saying. My mod Repub CA mother joked several months ago about how less mod Rs still see him as liberal. Well, I think they'll vote for him over Obama and he'll attract the more conservative Dems (who will prob vote down ballot Dem).

    NY could have the same set up. Little bit harder for McCain since the state it's self is getting more blue, but Obama is still going to have to connect to her voters here.

    The way I see it, Obama's got his work cut out for him.


    The 50 States (none / 0) (#41)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:33:59 AM EST
    strategy is DOA from an Obama campaign POV.

    Why? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:52:21 AM EST
    Why is she picking up any at all at this point?

    More seriously than my Huckabee comment below (4.66 / 3) (#55)
    by Valhalla on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:01:35 AM EST
    I've wondered that myself, even though I have faith my girl's gonna come through.

    Some SDs may in fact take their job seriously, using either argument -- that they should represent the will of their electorate or that they should consider electibility in the fall.

    Some probably get the same non-love from the DNC that Clinton's supporters are getting now, so why cave just to be in with the kool kidz?

    Some may think the real interests are not what the current DNC leaders think they are.

    Plus, who knows, maybe some are just cranky and ornery.

    It's funny, before I voted I had talked to a whole bunch of people who were Obama-crazy.  It got so I was afraid to discuss it with anyone.  I thought I my vote was to be some act of foolish courage.  After I voted I was interviewed by the local big paper about my vote and they actually quoted me by name.  All of a sudden all these Clinton supporters came out of the woodwork to talk to me.  (to be fair, the BO supporters congratulated me on getting my name in the paper too).  I just couldn't not vote my conscience even though it seemed at that time I was in a sad minority.  Maybe the SDs endorsing Clinton now are the same way.


    A friend didn't admit Clinton preference (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by andrys on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:12:00 AM EST
    ... only saying she wasn't sure and what was I going to do, so I told her and she said that was her choice but she didn't like to say so because of the atmosphere.

    Because like this blog... (1.00 / 0) (#19)
    by EddieInCA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:54:18 AM EST
    ...some people are still supporting her.


    Or do you have some other reason?


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:56:22 AM EST
    Obviously.  Just seems a little unprecedented to me given where we're at in the primary process.

    Any Republicans endorsing Huckabee these days?


    It ain't over, 'till it's over!!! (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:51:30 AM EST
    ...and it ain't over.

    No.... BUT.... (1.00 / 0) (#27)
    by EddieInCA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:05:07 AM EST
    McCain only got 72% in the Kentucky Primary.

    People STILL voted for Huckabee, Romney, Guliani, Paul, and even freaking Alan Keyes since they were still on the ballot.

    The ACTUAL Republican Nominee only got 72%.

    When he's already been chosen.

    A little unprecedented that Clinton still has support and is getting delegates at this point?

    No so much.


    Actually Huckabee (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Valhalla on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:22:09 AM EST
    did better against McCain than Obama did against Hillary in some Kentucky districts.

    Not strictly relevant, but it made me laugh.


    That says quite a bit (none / 0) (#43)
    by RalphB on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:35:48 AM EST
    about the state of the race.  HAHAHA

    Edgar (none / 0) (#119)
    by deathofrock on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:42:42 AM EST
    Big fan of your very insightful comments. You're always great at posting them. You should blog somewhere. :)

    McCain has the totel number of delegates needed. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by andrys on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:10:01 AM EST
    Obama doesn't yet.  That's the reason.

    are you being purposefully obtuse? (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:55:50 AM EST
    Clinton and Obama have roughly half the number of voters each.  If you count the votes (something I know Obama supporters do not like to do) you could say that each has the same number of supporters.

    Clinton's base of supporters is not only on this blog.  They are all over the country (aka, "The Appalachia From Sea to Shining Sea")


    Pilar Lujan (1.00 / 1) (#90)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:30:51 AM EST
    was elected the chairwoman of the Guam DNC on the promise that she would support the winner of the Guam caucus.  She waited all of a week or two before breaking that promise.  

    I think a lot of Guam Dems are regretting their votes.

    Pilar Lujan....our melanGUAMy Baby.... (none / 0) (#3)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:21:34 AM EST

    Obama Hillary stirring up anger (none / 0) (#88)
    by fctchekr on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:20:44 AM EST
    CNN.com this am; Obama says he wants to be fair and count delegates, Hillary's supporters will get over loss..A lollipop for us and assurance for Supers that he'll count as long as it's in his favor...

    There's (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:35:58 AM EST
    a real backlash going on againt Obama. It's been showing up in the voting but I think now people are starting to be more vocal about it.

    There's no way he's going to win this argument. Being against the voters isn't a good one.


    What makes me see red as per delegates (none / 0) (#115)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:55:01 AM EST
    is that when an SD switches from Obama to Hillary, it is trumpeted as betrayal of Obama, poaching, etc. When a delegate switches from Hillary to Obama, they are "seeing the light" and coming to the "right side". I think that is disgusting.

    Ca in Play (none / 0) (#102)
    by ajbb on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:31:17 AM EST
    won't same sex marriages be on the ballot again in November and isn't that how the GOP got right faring evangelicals to come out in record numbers and vote for Bush?

    John Kerry and Deval Patrick should be endorsing (none / 0) (#106)
    by carmel on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:51:16 AM EST
    Hillary too if they followed the "Obama Rules of Superdelegates", except they only apply if they favor Obama. Isn't Nancy Pelosi up for re-election against Cindy Sheehan? Senator Pelosi may find out just how angry the voters in her district are with her for not supporting Hillary at election time. Jimmy Carter is proving that Obama's middle east policy will not be favorable to Israel. Just look at the advisors surrounding Obama, they are not pro-Israel. The MSM and superdelegates still aren't getting it - women matter, our voices matter. We are going to make sure they are heard at the convention.

    You (none / 0) (#111)
    by tek on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:44:51 AM EST
    go Girl!

    i had high hopes for pelosi, (none / 0) (#114)
    by cpinva on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:19:43 AM EST
    Pelosi may find out just how angry the voters in her district are with her for not supporting Hillary at election time.

    which she very quickly dashed, when she stated, right off the bat, that impeachment was off the table. not that i necessarily thought it should happen mind you, or that if tried, it would succeed, but you never take any of your cards out of play until it's absolutely required.

    she's pretty much gone down hill from there. ms. sheehan probably won't win against her, but pelosi's in for (i suspect) a lot closer fight than she most likely expected.

    Pelosi is through (none / 0) (#117)
    by SoCalDem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:37:40 AM EST
    We have another Democrat running for Pelosi's seat as well as Cindy Sheehan. I don't expect her to keep her seat. Time well tell.

    Breaking News (none / 0) (#124)
    by Folkwolf101 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:26:14 PM EST
    Great that our Hillary has picked up the support of another woman of conscience. Not all misogynists are men. Check this inspiring video from a conscientious news team: http://donnadarko.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/cnn-misogyny-in-the-media/