Hillary Picks Up N.C. Superdelegate, Will Stay Until There's a Nominee

Update: Marc Ambinder's 7 reasons why Hillary should stay in the race.

Hillary Clinton picked up a superdelegate in North Carolina today.

U.S. Rep. Heath Shuler pledged his support to Sen. Hillary Clinton after she won in his Western North Carolina district.

Obama also picked up a North Carolina superdelegate today. At least two are staying uncommitted, U.S. Rep. Bob Etheridge of Lillington and an attorney (Parker?)whom I heard on the news earlier.

Almost 300 of the 796 superdelegates remain uncommitted. Here's a list of some of the more prominent ones.

Hillary today said she's staying in until there is a nominee. Good for her.

< Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | Demographics >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I will have to write a letter of thank you (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:10:43 PM EST
    to this NC Superdelegate.  I would like to see other Clinton supporters to do the same.

    I just (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:15:11 PM EST
    sent her some more money.  She's not giving up-neither am I.

    She had great showings this week and I don't buy the media narrative.  She won Indiana after being down by 6, she came within 7 votes in Guam, after being down by 11%, and she closed from 25 down in NC.

    I believe he is unelectable.  I'm glad she's still in it.

    Now That I Know That She Is Staying In (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:36:35 PM EST
    I will donate some more tonight.

    How I saw this new party (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:18:15 PM EST
    treat the woman candidate completely has deflated any fantasy I ever had that the Democratic Party supports women.

    Sorry.  That's obviously not true.

    As for minorities?  The minority AA group is now in charge.  I presume Obama will take care of them.

    Or maybe not.  He may totally abandon them now that he got the nomination.  After all, they aren't really enough to solidify his power.   But that is their problem.

    As for other minorities?  I suspect they feel a lot like I as female today after watching this bashing of a viable candidate.  It's hard to not empathize and picture yourself in her shoes.


    He, Barack Obama (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:44:21 PM EST
    Has never taken care of them.  The Clinton's have, sure, but he has not.  One of the saddest things in this primary has been how badly he has turned away from being black so that he could appease white america, and yet still he is being propped up by that community by huge margins.  I truly think he will continue to ignore their needs in a way that Hillary Clinton never would.

    I've always hated the idea (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by kayla on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:10:15 PM EST
    that black people should pick who has helped blacks the most.  Barack Obama is black.  That in and of itself is pretty helpful and there's nothing that can tear away that sense of pride the AA community feels about him and his chances at winning.

    Honestly, neither Hillary nor Barack nor John should be expected to do anything specifically for the black community.  They're expected to work for all of America.  We're voting for who'd make the best president, not who'll make the best civil rights leader.


    Sadly, you are right (none / 0) (#119)
    by Folkwolf101 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:01:04 PM EST
    I can all but guarantee that Obama will not do anything more for his AA supporters. After all, he is far more White than Black. Raised by a white family, schooled in white education among white students, Barack hardly knew any Black people until leaving high school. Just watch him clap or dance and you will see a very awkward looking white man in Black skin. The worse racism he ever experienced was in Indonesia as a chubby little child where the kids called him "negro" instead of his name.  No, no, Barack is a true politician with a huge apetite for more, more, more.... He has nothing more to gain from Black society.

    Limbaugh (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by daria g on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:23:53 PM EST
    It's curious that suddenly Obama's team is blaming Republicans for the election outcome when they've been the ones pushing the "Democrats for a Day" program to encourage GOP crossover voters to help them win for the entire primary season.

    Now those votes are to be disparaged because they didn't all go his way?  I thought there was no Red America and Blue America.


    who needs facts? (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:44:07 PM EST
    When you consider that tens of thousands of conservative Republicans crossed over to vote for Hillary as a result of Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" and that exit polls showed that they wouldn't vote for her in the fall, that's a pretty disheartening situation you are trying so desperately to spin into a "win."  

    If you say it's so, then it must be true.

    We're all racist and we only vote for her because we're really Republicans and she was supposed to win by at least 20 or else it didn't count.

    The real fun in operation chaos is your own total lack of awareness that they are playing psy ops games on a more sophisticated level than you credit them with being capable of. The real mischief in the Limbaugh votes is in people like you quoting him. They know you think white rural voters are morons, and they know it is the Democratic party's fatal weakness. They think Democrats are stupid, and the ones who think they are so smart and superior are even stupider, and the fact that you don't even consider that you could be the real butt of the joke is what is so funny, because of course if Dems were really smart they wouldn't always lose.

    I personally believe it's more likely they are crossing over for Obama, inflating his vote and making Hillary's look smaller and weaker than it really is. But we'll never really know for sure.


    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by chrisvee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:34:30 PM EST
    I like to think of myself as a rational member of the reality-based community. But here's the thing.

    My working class white mom supported herself, my sick dad, my brother, and me on a depressingly small hourly wage for many years.  She raised us to believe and practice that all people are created equal, that we need to extend a helping hand to those in need, and that everyone is endowed with certain inalienable rights -- those things we call values.  She had a zero tolerance policy towards any hint of anything racist or sexist. Thanks to her efforts, my brother and I are now highly-educated, latte-swilling creative classers.  Except I hate coffee so I'm actually a wine-swiller.

    I'm sick of hearing people talk crap about my mom.  That's what this is starting to boil down to for me even though I know that's irrational.  I can dismiss the MSM as jerks, I can ignore the trolls on blogs who are probably operatives, but I can't tolerate it when it comes from the candidate himself or his surrogates.  If we want to know why people vote against their own economic interests, this primary provides an opportunity for observation in the field, so to speak.


    Psy Ops (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by swaviator on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:46:15 AM EST
    I'm in complete agreement with you "Pys Ops" statement.  Moreover, I'm disgusted to the point of become physically ill from BO's supporters and his constant play on "White middle class liberal guilt".  

    What is galling me the most is the suggestion that people from small towns and rural America are stoo-pud, uneducated and unsophsticated dolts who "don't get it".  I'm from a small rual community in Oklahoma, of 1200 people. I have a BS in Aerospace Engineering, I also have a Masters in Physics & Astronomy and a Masters in Liberal Arts. (Okay, that's weird) Additionally, I'm not a geezer, I am Liberal, I make over $50,000 per year and I SUPPORT HILLARY!!


    Got some stats to support this claim? (4.33 / 3) (#79)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:41:26 PM EST
    When you consider that tens of thousands of conservative Republicans crossed over to vote for Hillary as a result of Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" and that exit polls showed that they wouldn't vote for her in the fall, that's a pretty disheartening situation you are trying so desperately to spin into a "win."  A new twist on "Joementum," perhaps.

    Without citations, it looks like bulls**t.


    its a dog whistle... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:08:48 PM EST
    Obama is telling his black supporters that Rush Limbaugh and his white Republican legions are trying to destroy him, and they must defend Obama or let the white devils win!

    Obama spent 20 years being mentored by a preacher whose primary claim to fame was in demonizing white people in the name of Christianity.  Obama has figure out how to use the legitimate anger of AFrican Americans for his own narcissistic ends -- because he studied for 20 years at the feet of a master.


    I did, too.. (none / 0) (#112)
    by mrjerbub on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:37:42 PM EST
    I can't watch any of the jerkaziods on TV anymore. If I want to know what going on, I come here. At least if it's bad news, I know y'all will break it to me easy like.

    Blue sun- if Barack is the second coming (none / 0) (#114)
    by kenosharick on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:32:50 PM EST
    and such a great candidate as portrayed by many; then why is he so afraid of Hillary and all of you keep whining that she needs to step out of his way. Guess what? All this pathetic whining and name calling from your side does not bode well for Nov. The Obama campaign may have won the nom by guilting their way to victory- but that will not work against repubs. The race against Hillary has been a CAKEWALK and you all are in for a rude awakening. You should be grateful that Sen. Clinton has toughened up his glass jaw ever so slightly.

    Oh (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:16:04 PM EST
    and she'll win W Va by about 70-30 and Ky by about 65-35.

    Obama has serious electability issues that NC didn't solve.

    solve? NC exacerabated them... (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:46:25 PM EST
    Remember Virginia?  All the talk of how Obama could 'expand the map' and make VA and NC competitive after Obama carried VA by 29 points.

    VA was carried by Bush in 2004 by 54-46, and NC was Bush 56-44.  So we're talking two pretty similar states here...the only real difference is that NC was 26% AA in 2004, and VA was 21%.

    But Obama's margin drops by half?  In less than two weeks?


    Nonsense. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by sweetthings on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:19:19 PM EST
    The whole point of having Supers is that they are independent of the voters. These are people who live politics all year round, as opposed to those of us who have real jobs. They owe us their best judgment, not just an echo chamber.

    Yup. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:20:31 PM EST
    Using this logic, Kerry, Kennedy and Napolitano would have to be Clinton SD's.

    The point of the SD's is that they come in and break a tie. They can vote however they please.


    They are supposed to set their own criteria. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:21:15 PM EST
    I suppose that it the whole point of them.

    That is the point of the SDs (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by lambert on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:25:01 PM EST
    It's quite clear in the documentation and the history is well known.

    Making the insistence of the OFB on "the rules" just about as disingenuous as you can imagine -- leaving aside our famously free press, who solemnly nod their heads when it is propounded.

    Like BTD said, no reality based community. I just thought my side had that. But no.


    In reality (none / 0) (#20)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:23:12 PM EST
    Most elected superdelegates adhere more closely to Shuler's criteria than to the ideal criteria of "who would be the better nominee."  The issue is which candidate has more support in their district, or which candidate they'd prefer to have on the ticket when they run for reelection.

    Let's say you're a member of Congress.  90% of your district supports one of the candidates, but you are convinced that candidate would lose in November.  What would you do?  These people are politicians, after all.


    It's very telling to me (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:24:47 PM EST
    that the non-elected super d's, the party loyalists and such, trend Clinton.

    They want to win.


    Of course, that's a complicated question (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:24:49 PM EST
    in that case, you'd have to ask yourself whether you care more about winning your election next time or the Presidency.

    It was, I think, the question John Lewis was faced with. There's at least one NY rep who faces a similar conundrum.


    Who in NY? (none / 0) (#35)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:34:36 PM EST
    Yvette Clarke (none / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:03:08 PM EST
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#90)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:01:31 PM EST
    Actually, (none / 0) (#94)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:06:46 PM EST
    he may have been waiting for his constituency to back him up with his choice...it's possible he's up for re-election this year.

    Someone better tell Chris Bowers (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:20:25 PM EST
    that there are parts of NC that Obama didn't win. . .

    I never have gotten an answer to this question (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Saul on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:22:19 PM EST
    I will try again.

    Can someone tell me what terrible thing the DNC was trying to prevent from happening by telling FL and Mi not to have an early primary?

    Were a bunch of people going to die that day if they did not abide by their ruling?  Was there going to be some physical catastrophe if they did not abide by the DNC ruling?  

    They only thing I saw was a record number of people voting that was the worst thing that happen.

    My point is or am I alone in my reasoning that it was a stupid rule by the DNC and all they had to do was to admit to it and count the delegates.

    The analogy I use is like if the DNC would have said you cannot come to vote if you wear brown shoes.  Your vote will only count if you wear black shoes.  I mean that is how stupid the DNC ruling was to me.

    How come a bunch a people can vote all at the same time on Super Tuesday what's the difference.  So two states wanted to vote early.  I do not understand what is so wrong if you want to vote early.

    Can someone please tell me what meaningful thing the DNC was trying to prevent from happening with their ruling?

    Well (none / 0) (#22)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:24:08 PM EST
    the argument was that everyone would start trying to be first, and the 2012 primaries would start in 2010 or something.

    Sounds like the COOL excuse (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:29:58 PM EST
    The reason they argue against country of origin labeling is that a Hershey bar would have a 10 ft label ior something to that effect.

    As someone who's designed her fair share of labels, I call BS.  ;)


    It's a silly argument (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:04:42 PM EST
    If they move the primary too early, it become irrelevant. They become irrelevant. How far can you move a primary forward? November of the previous year? Oh, yeah. Voter's will love you for making them try to figure out who to vote for when they really need to figure out how to seat Aunt Edna and Uncle Charles as far away from Cousin Fred as possible because of what happened last year at Thanksgiving. Before that, a lot of candidate haven't even declared, and it takes time to print up ballots and arrange things. They really can't move this much further than January.

    I think the real reason is that New Hampshire votes first and "that's the way it has always been", so they have to keep doing it that way. Of course, we rarely win, because they refuse to do things differently. How about voting in order of how many people voted for the last Democratic President? That way you'll get a candidate who will be pleasing to the most Dems. And, while we're at it - No crossover votes. And we count votes, not delegates. The most votes wins. Simple, elegant.


    Here's an idea (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:21:14 PM EST
    Whichever state has the highest percentage of eligible voters show up for the presidential election gets to go first in the next cycle.

    I can't claim credit for this idea, but I think it's pretty cool.  This way, if states really want to be first, they can do something about it and encourage people to get to the polls.


    I like it (none / 0) (#72)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:26:21 PM EST
    How much gets spent on the opening primaries vs the middle and end, historically speaking?

    Because this year, the lottery ticket it seems was to be at the end of the campaign but truth be told I don't know how much was spent when.

    I did not like Hillary having to give a concession speech after Iowa straight out of the box. Would like to see 4 states on day one, so that the press has less effect on "momentum" so to speak.


    Well (none / 0) (#85)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:45:06 PM EST
    the campaign in Iowa went on for months.  I think John Edwards had an office in the state like a year in advance.

    I'm sure Pennsylvania did pretty well, as things turned out, but that was only because (1) there just happened to be a 6-week gap in the schedule, and (2) the election was still in doubt at that point.  Neither of those are predictable or things you'd like to bet on.

    The first couple primaries are always going to generate a ton more revenue because the candidates think they can score a knockout blow.  That's why states like Michigan want so badly to get in the game, and why the early states are so vehement about defending their place in line.  This year, after an incredible amount of angst, the only concession anyone could get from the early states was that NH was supposed to be third and not second - and then NH went ahead and violated the agreement anyway!  As Edwards said in a different context, these people will not give up their power without a fight.


    The way to solve this (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:27:01 PM EST
    is that you massive incentivize going later. There are incentives now, but suppose you could double your delegate power--or better. Last year no one would have gone for this, but this year it might seem popular.

    Even if your election doesn't matter, think of all the flunkies and donors who would get to attend the convention!

    Of course, delegates are stupid in the first place, but I see no way of getting rid of them. . .


    National primary day! (none / 0) (#40)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:37:14 PM EST
    Let's get rid of those delegates once and for all. No caucuses either. Just one giant mass of voting over one weekend.

    That was my suggestion (none / 0) (#57)
    by Saul on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:11:22 PM EST
    on a previous thread on how to solve the Democratic nomination process.  

    Here it is again


    The DNC should seriously consider the following changes for future presidential nominations.

        Get rid of all super delegates

        Get rid of all caucuses voting formats

        Have only primaries as the only format

        Have only registered democrats vote in each state primary

        Have all the states vote on one single day.  I suggest the second Tuesday of May
        A super super Tuesday

        Have from May 1st to the date of the primary election date for all voters to vote early or absentee to include mail in ballots for any voter who would not be able to physically get to a voting precinct.

        All candidates would have from November of the previous year to May 15 to do all their campaigning.  That is 6 months of campaigning or 26.5 weeks.  They can pick where they want to campaign.

        Then it's completely over.  You then would probably have until June the 1st to get a complete and certified count of all the delegate count and the popular vote.  

    Make the same system the general election (none / 0) (#60)
    by josephm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:14:11 PM EST
    I would suggest the delegates are calculated the same way as the General Election.

    Why Democrat presidential candidates lose the General Election more often than Republican presidential candidate? Have we ever wondered?
    (PS. Don't anybody reply here with "people who voted republicans are stupid". Please.)


    I second this idea! (none / 0) (#107)
    by Leisa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:52:30 PM EST
    National Primary Day!

    No caucuses!!


    Can anyone tell me (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:53:33 PM EST
    why they moved their primaries up when they were told not to?

    "if he gets up, we'll all get up, it'll be anarchy"


    Becase they were tired of being irrelevant (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:06:28 PM EST
    In past years, Florida and Michigan voted so late in the election that it simply didn't matter who they voted for. They had no hope of that ever changing. So they bucked the system. Nobody knew that this year would be different. We need to change a system that sends the message that only a few approved states will get to influence who our candidate is.

    ah, and now (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:13:59 PM EST
    they threaten boogeyman because they did not believe the warnings or because they thought they were "that important".

    The system stinks and someone has to challenge it, like the nuns in Indiana last night, but alas, when you defy the rules there are consequences.  I hope that it opens the eyes of the party to have a rolling start so that all states can be first and last, that seems the most democratic to me.  But I don't think the "boogeyman" tactics are effective or fair to every other state, therefore they should have their delegates seated at the whim of the party leaders.


    I'm not sure I understand (none / 0) (#68)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:23:02 PM EST
    As far as I'm concerned, if a state wants to hold it's primary in June of the year before the general election, they should be able to. They are risking irrelevance, but so be it. It's their choice. All in all, though, I think we'd be better off with a "stateless" primary in which people simply send in their votes when they feel they have made up their mind. Set a time period - maybe April to June. Then let people vote, with the only conditions being 1) once they have made up their mind, they can't change it and 2) nobody gets to know who won until the convention. Wouldn't that be a show?

    Here (none / 0) (#86)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:45:54 PM EST
    This letter explains Michigan's position.  I happen to think they have a pretty valid point.

    Simple (none / 0) (#101)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:23:40 PM EST
    It is spelled GOP.

    Indeed, the tracks under this train wreck trace back, in each case, to Republican maneuvers in state legislatures, political no- man's-lands for all who've blithely dismissed the disenfranchisement of the millions of registered Florida and Michigan Democrats.

    Wayne Barrett


    The Rethug Party Changed the date in FL (none / 0) (#102)
    by Boo Radly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:23:57 PM EST
    if I am not mistaken. The Democrats had no say in the matter, if I am not mistaken.

    And the "fix" was set up in a meeting last fall - which we have video of, by an attorney from California(MacDonald ?). And that was when D. Brazile made us the promise she would leave the DNC if the Super D's decided the outcome.

    Sorry, I have no links to back this up. Should be common knowledge by now.


    Hillary has no reason to drop out (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by sonya on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:30:47 PM EST
    She's doing just as well, arguably better, than Obama.  And yes, I'm counting Florida and Michigan because I'm part of the reality-based community.

    The only thing holding the party together right now is the fact that Hillary's still running.  I know some of you don't want to hear this, but if Obama was to be annointed the nominee at this point it would be devastating to the democratic party.  There wouldn't be massive demonstrations.  Instead, people would withhold their money from the DNC and vote for McCain in November.  That's how "old white people" riot.

    Because Hillary is taking this to Denver, I don't pay much attention to what superdelegates say at this time because they don't actually vote until the convention.  These announcements are for psyops purposes only because one thing I do know is that just because the spineless dems say they're gonna vote one way, it doesn't necessarily mean they'll actually vote that way when the rubber hits the road.

    i thought he had 50-100 in his pocket (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by sancho on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:35:39 PM EST
    i think hillary is going all the way to the convention. why wouldnt she? i would if i were her. i think she should make pelosi and the dnc gang say on the record they think obama will win and she won't. then count the votes in november and see how the leadership did. no reason for her to collaborate in an obama victory that structurally cannot happen until the superdelegates vote. no matter what chris matthews, tim russert, et al. say.

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:41:49 PM EST
    ..."people would withhold their money from the DNC and vote for McCain in November.  That's how 'old white people' riot."

    That is the funniest thing I've read today.
    I will cherish this quote forever!

    Want to see if you still think it is funny in Nov. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by josephm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:15:48 PM EST
    Glad to hear that you think it is funny. I want to see if you still think it is funny in November after the General Election.

    lol (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:19:27 PM EST

    I am trying to remember the last time i saw so many fear tactics in one place.

    Oh yeah, last time the "most electable" candidate ran against (arguably) the "worst president" in modern history.

    You guys learned a lot from that campaign, only problem is the "most electable" wasn't.


    Isn't that the same argument... (none / 0) (#70)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:24:56 PM EST
    ...that most Obama supporter's are making? Personally, I voted for Clinton because I think she's the most competent. The fact that Obama is unelectable is irrelevant. If I thought he was the better candidate I would have supported him.

    i have not seen that argument here (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:32:40 PM EST
    from obmamites, and I don't go anyplace else, so truth be told I don't know.  What i do see overwhelmingly here is some really angry clintonites who scare me and like to throw out the "we'll see in november"

    McCain has tons of weaknesses that will be identified and presented to the american public and the will of the people will decide if those weaknesses are greater than Baracks.  I think Barack is a stronger candidate as he will reach far more independents than Hillary, but only time will tell.

    Either way, I love hillary, i just wish that the anger infested supporters on this site would take their scare tactics to their self help groups and deal with them, it is shameful to read the despair.


    We're not mentally ill (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:43:20 PM EST
    We don't need therapy. We're angry at the way someone we respect has been treated. We're angry at the insults, the gloating, the dismissal of Clinton and all those who support her. Some of us are also sad because we feel that Obama will not win in the Fall.

    I suppose it's possible that the nation will find some faults in McCain, but I have no idea what they will be. The right wingers fought his nomination, bringing up everything they could find about him. He is like Clinton - he has been attacked so often that people have grown insensitive to the attacks. I suppose that Axelrod could make something up, like the race-baiting charges against Clinton, but I don't think he can use the same trick twice. The biggest issue McCain has is his age, and if Obama performs as badly in McCain/Obama debates as he did in Clinton/Obama debates, then McCain will look like the sharper candidate in spite of his age. And remember - the media have always hated Clinton, and they have always loved McCain. Axelrod will have his hands full.


    snark invested waters (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:07:53 PM EST
    What i do see overwhelmingly here is some really angry clintonites who scare me and like to throw out the "we'll see in november"

    Don't be scared. Contrary to what some people seem to like to think (fantasize about), Hillary isn't really "castrating", and I don't think she really can crack nuts with those stainless steel thighs of hers.

    So go ahead. Make comments about the bitter people. Say loudly that it's okay, we'll get behind the candidate in November. Use a condescending tone. Use words that suggest we're all infantile.

    Really - the more patronizing everyone is now, the more angry we'll get - and so the more you'll enjoy it later when we see the error of our ways, and we realize that submission is our holy duty, and we fall to our knees and beg the DNC to take us back.


    your self importance (none / 0) (#111)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:15:54 PM EST
    is tiresome. Your posts are miserable and completely selfish and I am glad not to have made your acquaintance, the lot of you.  

    You are sick of others gloating (I have done no such thing as I love both candidates), I am sick of it too, unfortunately I don't see it here in any great numbers.  What I do see are several, NOT ALL, Hillary supporters who think their vitriol and threats of departure are to invoke sympathy or rear kissing by those who would support Obama.

    Phooey to that.  It is childish and repulsing.  Hillary and Obama are in a close race and the Hillary supporters expect Obama supporters to concede even though he is leading because they think they know better?  Bah humbug.

    You and your lot vote for McCain, vote INdy, stay home, it is your right as an American.  It is also my right to say your whiny, pathetic attempts at attention shall receive attention of the straight talk express kind.  

    But the advice still stands, get some help to deal with that anger, it can really consume you and eat you up inside.  Kinda like the feeling you get every day when you wake up and realize that George Bush was elected twice by the citizens of the US.  

    I use words to demonstrate the infantility of your statements to make a point.  when you read my posts you get all worked up feeling condescended, and when I read your posts I get all worked up because policy and direction for this country is far more important than whether or not in your opinion your candidate got a fair shake.  When Dean lost I campaigned for Kerry, not because I liked Kerry but because from a policy perspective he was better for the country than Bush.

    The same applies here.  Get off your arse, eat some crow and will our party to victory.  Or sit back for 4 more years and complain about how Hillary would have never lost while I count all of my extra money from the repealing of the AMT tax and lament the policies of a party that is out of touch with reality.

    Hillary will not win the nomination, perhaps she will become the vp and help unify the fractured party, or perhaps she will not and the party will have to find its own way.  Either way, there is enough money and support behind Obama to expose the weaknesses of 4 more years of Bush policy and Obama will win.  

    Hopefully, Hillary will maintain the diplomacy and leadership she showed last night in her speech.  As for her followers who are so angry they will never ever no way no how vote for that evil Obamer, good friggin riddance.


    Exactly right. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:19:21 PM EST
    No booing at people.  That's disrespectful.

    Also no contributions.  :)


    It is truly a comical (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:59:58 PM EST
    way to say what has the potential of happening.

    If you think about the purpose and intent of a riot, the DNC needs to take a look at some of the decisions it has made during this process. It is about the people taking back control of the government.

    "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson


    Great (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:25:44 PM EST
    Then we should expect to see Deval Patrick, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Bill Richardson come out and campaign for Hillary!

    Well.... (none / 0) (#98)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:10:23 PM EST
    they all seem to think they are senior enough to actually be entitled to follow the true intention of the superdelegate creation.

    Except for Patrick, the others you mention are all failed runs for the presidency, themselves. Imagine how difficult it is for them to see both Clinton's hold the office. Their decisions are based in very personal agendas.


    What I don't understand... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:12:48 PM EST
    Is why they go through the charade of primaries and caucuses, spend money on the mechanics, waste people's time as they come out to vote, burn out the engines of a doomed candidate -- if it's all been predetermined beforehand by deals for cash behind closed doors.

    If they need BHO's humongous fundraising skills and his Rolodex, why don't they just say so, get all the SDs to come down at once, and declare it a done deal?


    Some have been (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:40:03 PM EST
    saying so outright... you here youth involvement, money, turnout, money, energy, money...

    The Dems will give up the presidency for the money, they have a majority in congresss.  Craig Crawford is good on this.  He thinks the Dems don't care.  I don't either.  Who would want to deal with two wars and a crappy economy.


    Interesting story and quotes from the supers... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:24:10 PM EST
    ...from thehill.com yesterday:

    Uncommitted Democratic superdelegates in Congress overwhelmingly say they won't necessarily back the presidential candidate who wins the most primary delegates. Instead, electability will be very important in their decision.

    Of 42 lawmakers interviewed by The Hill, only four said they regarded the primary vote as decisive.


    A few Democrats echo party leaders, who have called on superdelegates to sustain the will of primary voters. But even superdelegates who say the delegate count will be decisive in their own decision-making add a caveat: They warn that the delegate count will be less important if the leading candidate has not also won a majority of the popular vote.

    "For me it will be a combination of delegate lead and the popular vote," said Rep. Jason Altmire, a neutral Democrat from Pennsylvania. "If Clinton catches Obama in the popular vote, that's important.

    I need to spend (none / 0) (#106)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:51:44 PM EST
    some time looking at the list of superdeez, whether they are up for re-election and their demographics.  Do they want to win or will they cave?  I'm a cynic, I have no respect left for politicians, I'm guessing they cave to media pressure to play the delegate game.

    We have enough political capital (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by WillBFair on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:58:12 PM EST
    just now that Obama should win the ge. But he's a dingbat. He's already done plenty to loose us the rural vote. He doesn't know the first thing about policy formation and he'll screw up in office. We'll loose the congress, then the presidency. And the party might not recover in our lifetime.
    When I think that instead of the Clinton's vast knowledge, flawless reasoning, and spectacular governing record, we'll be listening to four years of Obama's shallow rhetoric, it makes me sick. The msm knew they couldn't have another puppet, so they infiltrated the party in order to give us an ignorant poser.  
    It's brutal.


    As a friend of ours once whispered (4.33 / 6) (#3)
    by Anne on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:08:39 PM EST
    after a particularly aggravating experience:

    "I see stupid people.  They're everywhere.  They don't know they're stupid.  They can't help themselves."

    With apologies to "The Sixth Sense."

    My version... (none / 0) (#5)
    by oldpro on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:11:03 PM EST
    No brains, no headaches.

    a few words of advice (none / 0) (#117)
    by Folkwolf101 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:10:29 PM EST
    Stop looking in the mirrors, if you want to stop "seeing stupid people everywhere." No one is more stupid than the flat face you are seeing in reflection.

    "Obama is a MacDaddy!":



    You may excuse yourself. (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by sarahfdavis on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:16:11 PM EST
    You have no decorum.
    No grace.
    Please take a break from your unity pitch.

    Awww, leave Dalton alone. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:19:25 PM EST
    He's the nicest Obama supporter (except for BTD) around. :-)

    There have been some awful ones (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:23:34 PM EST
    last night and this morning.  It's very dispiriting.  Seems like a targeted attack.  The gloating seems to come from the top down.

    Let me remind y'all: Clinton was supposed to lose NC and IN, by 25 and 7 respectively.

    She is beating expectations.  Why are we letting the press, who sold us Bush and the war, tell us what the weather's like?  We need only look out our own windows.

    Don't stop canvassing.  Don't stop giving money.  Don't stop calling.  Don't give up because she hasn't given up.  

    If this was over, then it'd be over.  The SDs are holding back for a reason.


    Heh. (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:36:13 PM EST
    The SDs are holding back for a reason.

    Whatever could it be?


    Now Kathy (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:48:20 PM EST
    let's not be hard on the Obama supporters (our friend already cited in this thread firmly excepted.)

    The word has gone out that the final demoralization of Clinton supporters MUST BEGIN!

    Of course, that grim order was summarily and hastily withdrawn, because Darth Kos doesn't want Obama to run unopposed in the next couple of primaries.  That would be BAD.

    But a few Obama folks didn't get the word, and they trolled merrily over here to Talk Left, eager to fulfill their duties to the ONE.

    Just get out your can of sarcasm and spray 'em.


    Feh, (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:22:47 PM EST
    don't worry. She's going to win big next week in WV. They are worried about that and hence the calls to drop out. You know whenever she's got a win coming up, the losers come out and scream "drop out" because the narrative then becomes "why can't Obama win?".

    I second that (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:34:10 PM EST
    I see nothing gloating about what he wrote, and he has been (imo) great to talk to. But I can see with some others around last couple of days why your phaser may be set to kill! ;)

    They "leak" that after every primary ;) (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:31:58 PM EST
    How did you think it would come across? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:39:53 PM EST
    If that came off as offensive or as gloating of any sort. It was not my intention to make it seem that way--just to report something I had found in the news.

    And since you know that most of us are Hillary supporters what other reason that gloating would you have for imparting such information here?


    and your point is? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:00:14 PM EST
    there are people at this site from all three parties, who are keenly interested in the politics of crime, who have been here considerably longer than you. Who are you to tell anyone on this site that they should be sensitive because there are Hillary supporters here?

    It ain't your site, in more ways than one.  It ain't Hillary's site and your sensitivity has no relevance.


    Amen! (none / 0) (#66)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:19:56 PM EST
    I see being around this site for a long time (none / 0) (#73)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:28:13 PM EST
    Has given you great people skills. BTW since you are not sensitive at all can I say almost all your posts today don't have any relevance?

    don't need sensitivity (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:38:38 PM EST
    when dealing with whiners.  Republican or democrat.  My comments are as relevant as yours and to the postings with which i am responding to.  

    your anger and histrionics are silly to me and I feel comfortable saying so.  Why dress it up?  Call a spade a spade.  

    Ain't no one responsible for their emotions but theyselves, and rather than read the whine and not respond I choose to say "hey, your friggin whinin".


    Diplomacy is your forte (none / 0) (#74)
    by feet on earth on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:28:35 PM EST
    ok. thanks. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by sarahfdavis on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:43:28 PM EST
    But when you're absolutely raw and worn down by insults,
    even what appears to you to be benign can come off as snotty.
    It's the lack of any empathy and disrespect from so many Obama supporters that has me boiling beneath the surface.

    Appreciate it (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by smott on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:54:45 PM EST
    Dalton but I fear it is too late for many on this site.

    As it is too late for Obama to get back the voters he has lost.

    2 months ago I was happy to vote for either Dem in the general.

    Now I'm going to have to talk myself in to voting just for down-ticket Dems...I think I need to change my affiliation to Independent.

    And I strongly suspect I'll write in Hillary.

    Too much has come from the Obama campaign now and it can't be undone.


    Dalton (none / 0) (#47)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:52:10 PM EST
    is cool.

    ok what was wrong (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:55:19 PM EST
    with Dalton's post?

    decorum?  grace?

    "cat food or crow, your choice"


    Heh (none / 0) (#1)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:56:14 PM EST
    Well, by definition, she's staying in until there's a nominee!

    yep (none / 0) (#6)
    by Nasarius on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:11:29 PM EST
    Later in the article:
    She declined to say whether she intended to carry the fight to the party's national convention in August.

    She'll wrap up the last few primaries, hopefully work out some kind of deal with Obama, then bow out on June 3. Sigh.

    This is the woman... (none / 0) (#55)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:08:58 PM EST
    ...who put up with all of the right wing bull for nearly a decade of her husband's Presidency, then decided to expose herself to more attacks by running for Senator in New York, then decided to buck the system and run for President, knowing full well that the right wing would continue to attack her. She perseveres. I don't think she'll drop out before the convention. The Dem leaders had better start working on a way to "heal" without forcing Clinton out.

    And, she, along with her husband (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:03:19 PM EST
    are willing to put up great sums of their own money for the good of the country.

    I bow to the incredible constitution of the Clinton's. Awestruck, to say the least.


    In the spirit of postpartisan unity (none / 0) (#84)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:44:49 PM EST
    we should place half the blame on the Left.

    David Parker, (none / 0) (#8)
    by oldpro on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:12:47 PM EST
    I think, Jeralyn...

    Per the AP.. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Adept Havelock on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:20:25 PM EST
    Virginia's state representative and DNC member Jennifer McClellan has flipped from Clinton to Obama.

    Another politician. (none / 0) (#34)
    by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:34:13 PM EST
    Another black politician, I should say.

    Why should you say (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by flyerhawk on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:40:01 PM EST
    another BLACK politician?

    Was she just another woman politician when she was endorsing Hillary?


    Obama pocketed the support (none / 0) (#27)
    by 1jane on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:28:36 PM EST
    of at least four Democratic convention superdelegates today. He is visiting Oregon on Friday March 9 and Friday March 10, overlapping Clinton's visit to my county in Oregon. Clinton is holding two private fundraisers and one free public event in Oregon tomorrow and will continue to go to small white and working class towns to shore up her base. Oregon is predicted to go Obama by double digits. We shall see. Only 6 democratic primaries left.

    Honestly I'd be shocked (none / 0) (#36)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:35:13 PM EST
    If either one did any major campaigning or poured serious money into the state.

    She knows the country needs her (none / 0) (#80)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:42:57 PM EST
    and that Obama won't deliver solutions to the severe problems for the middle and lower classes. She knows he won't protect social security, or repair the budget problems, pay down the debt, or handle foreign affairs with empathy, understanding and the firm hand of reason.

    She is my hero, and given a chance, she will make sure the country rejuvenates its image in the world.

    Also (none / 0) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:26:10 PM EST
    she knows the longer she stays in the more likely that Obama will implode.

    I love how Clinton (none / 0) (#91)
    by michellemarie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:01:31 PM EST
    fully embodies American values of working hard and opening up opportunity for everyone. She has donated 10 million to this campaign. That's a lot of money, and at this point, a little ridiculous to have just put down 6 million. Why is she fighting so hard? It can't just be to get more money from book deals afterward. Why do people impugn her motives? She is the only one who cares about the most marginalized, and she is the one who will represent EVERY American

    I keep posting this, but the threads keep closing (none / 0) (#93)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:04:34 PM EST
    Please read this article:


    If this is true, are the SDs free at all?  If you are taking money from one of the candidates, how can you be "free"?

    Would someone please explain this to me?  Maybe I'm missing something...

    Very well known (none / 0) (#100)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:14:39 PM EST
    that many of Obama's SDs have received PAC contributions from his personal fund. Amazing how he can buy support through a PAC while he claims he can't be bought by the same means. His hypocrisy is about the only transparent part of him.

    Yay, Heath! (none / 0) (#113)
    by tnjen on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:44:29 PM EST
    I think I'm the only Vol fan that never much cared for Heath Shuler but I do now.

    Am I alone (none / 0) (#115)
    by BGP on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:44:44 AM EST
    in finding Ambinder's reasons for Clinton to stay in the race a bit patronizing?

    And do I care if Obama is embarassed by losses in Kentucky and West Virginia?

    I guess I do if I'm a loyal Democrat but at this point I'm not sure about that.

    Hillary as an Independent! (none / 0) (#118)
    by Folkwolf101 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:18:16 PM EST
    What if Hillary ran as an independent? Would that only guaranee a McCain victory, or could she actually get enough voters on her side. Women unite! I am a typical middle-aged, upper-income white man, but I would surely vote for her on any ticket.

    TODAY (none / 0) (#120)
    by checkmate2000 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:45:35 PM EST
    still can't believe Hillary is so racist...I am totally dissillusioned...it is hard to swallow...so I am leaving her very sad and dissapointed