home

Sen. Salazar: Senators Didn't Agree on Endorsement

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:15:03 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Rocky Mountain News reports:

Sen. Ken Salazar joined a small group of fellow undecided Democratic superdelegates on Capitol Hill today, but said they reached no agreement on whether to endorse a presidential candidate as a group.

The gathering created a major stir amid published reports that up to 15 previously uncommitted senators were on the verge of giving a united endorsement to Democratic front-runner Sen. Barack Obama.

Salazar said he could make the case for either candidate. Others at the meeting included: Sens. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa; Ben Cardin, D-Md.; and Tom Carper, D-Del. [More...]

Salazar said he won't decide before the primaries end and will probably meet with other Senators again before deciding:

Harkin said there would be another meeting with more uncommitted superdelegates on Wednesday. However, Harkin said he was not sure that the group would end up voting as a block.

Also as yet undeclared from Colorado: Rep. John Salazar, Rep. Mark Udall and Gov. Bill Ritter

Comments now closed.

< Blogcloggers : Open Thread | Montana Primary Preview >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sen. Salazar: Senators Didn't Agree on Endorsement | 223 comments (223 topical)
    But (5.00 / 12) (#1)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:16:45 PM EST
    I thought it was supposed to be ooooooover, and all that remained was for the SDs to crown the nominee in unison...

    It's just a voter suppression campaign (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by cymro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:44:56 PM EST
    I believe that most if not all of the recent media stories about it being "over" are part of a concerted voter suppression campaign aimed at limiting Clinton's gains in the final primaries.

    They are desperate, because it's clearly NOT over yet, and they are trying to minimize the evidence. But the voters are not buying it, and the polls will show it.

    [ Parent ]

    We shall see (4.00 / 4) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:22:45 PM EST
    This campaign season has been full of decisive moments that weren't.

    I still think this is essentially over, and it's just a question of time.

    [ Parent ]

    I've noticed that... (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:29:28 PM EST
    We have been teased with various and sundry "It's going to happen any day now" only to get past the expected day without it (whatever it is) actually happening.

    [ Parent ]
    It's to keep the tingle in (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:31:42 PM EST
    Tweety's leg.

    [ Parent ]
    Tweety actually has twice said (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:23:12 PM EST
    lastest time tonight, that this business of a mob of SDs about to declare for Obama reminds him of when Lucy keeps promising not to swipe the football away from Charlie Brown every year and swipes it anyway and he believes her and hits the ground nose first every time.

    IOW, he's skeptical.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama talking point: it's gonna happen (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Prabhata on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:51:59 PM EST
    any moment, and with the push to get Hillary out.  He's done that in every race, and he thought Hillary, being a woman would bite.  Another reason I will never vote for Obama. His lack of respect for  Hillary.  My list is long.

    [ Parent ]
    Sure (5.00 / 14) (#24)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:31:02 PM EST
    But after the astounding avalanche of stories today designed to declare the thing over (for the umpteenth time, but even more emphatically this time), for the Democratic Senators to get together and disagree about whether there's life in this thing is a pretty significant data point.

    People can spin all they want, the media can recite all the narrative it wants, but the skeptical observer pays attention to the facts on the ground above all.  Very, very interesting.

    [ Parent ]

    Does this mean the senators came to their (5.00 / 7) (#49)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:38:53 PM EST
    senses and down the road will vote for the best candidate instead of the presumptive candidate?
    AND, why do they have to be in a clusterf$%k to make a decision like this one?

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 8) (#64)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:42:57 PM EST
    as Obama himself demonstrated a few months back, it's all about penetrating the aura of inevitability.

    Once you accept that there are two options on the table, the decision gets a lot more complex.

    I wonder if Sen. Lautenberg will be endorsing this week.  He has a semi-tough primary tomorrow and I'm sure he's kept quiet so as not to alienate anyone, but NJ is very strong Clinton country.

    [ Parent ]

    Considering (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:46:56 PM EST
    NJ went strongly for Hillary, I can't see how it would help him to endorse Obama. I don't know how the demos broke down -- i.e. did people from outside NYC go for Obama, the rest of Hillary. The people in NJ who are more likely to support Obama don't seem to be the sort to support Lautenberg just on that merit, but this year has been so strange that I can't swear to anything for any reason.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:51:49 PM EST
    Lautenberg's challenger is running ads that are all like change change change.  Oh, and saying Lautenberg is too old.  So I mean, to the extent there's a parallel, you can see how it lines up.

    A number of the Democratic power brokers in NJ appear to be extremely convinced that Obama cannot win in November, from what I hear secondhand.

    [ Parent ]

    That's good to know (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:55:32 PM EST
    I'm kind of in the NY bubble where despite what our local papers claim, all the NY SDs (save a few) are firmly and unwaveringly behind Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    I've been hearing that as well. (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by Iphie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:42:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That is a very interesting point (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by SamJohnson on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:03:23 PM EST
    Andrews has been trying to glom onto the Obama campaign, working with Booker's people (but not officially, mind you)  to create a whole website about Rob Andrews support of an agenda that is so contrary to his Bush kissing voting record that it's almost funny. Somehow he has a lot of money behind him.  Lautenberg has no need to endorse Obama, unlike Clyburn or Lewis or other elected officials who have been threatened with opposition to their continued position as elected officials by Obama supporters. Chicago style politics in Jersey?  Na.Ganna.Fly.

    [ Parent ]
    It begs the question, how many (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:43:50 PM EST
    super delegates does it take to nominate Obama? Answer, None, he just self-annoints each day!!

    [ Parent ]
    Stopped buying the avalanche stories (5.00 / 7) (#57)
    by RalphB on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:41:44 PM EST
    after TX and OH primaries.  That avalanche junk was absolutely flooding the media in TX before the primary.  It looks like a standard tactic to try and lower turnout at this point.


    [ Parent ]
    Yes, but (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by MonaL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:55:34 PM EST
    the avalanche stories create a meme that causes momentum to swing accordingly.  Despite the fact that Clinton has come on strong and Obama is limping to the end.

    Hopefully the rest of the SDs have the common sense to see their way through the media/Obama spin.

    And if not, let's go to Denver.

    [ Parent ]

    On to Denver (5.00 / 4) (#160)
    by RalphB on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:10:09 PM EST
    I'm up for it.  I'd be happy as a clam to see this thing go to the convention floor.


    [ Parent ]
    But this time Nancy Pelosi and other (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Serene1 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:14:39 PM EST
    Dem elite worthies were behind the SD avalanche stories. Therefore there must be some truth to it. At the least maybe Pelosi and Co. are busy arm twisting all the remaining SD's to go for BO. That is why they confidently declared that come tuesday the majority of SD's would come out in support of BO.

    [ Parent ]
    It Will Be Over Soon (1.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Spike on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:48:25 PM EST
    But I'd guess that members of the House and the DNC will help put Obama over the top. Hilary's colleagues in the Senate will wait until Obama has hit his magic number before they endorse him. They are showing respect to a colleague that they will be working closely with in the future.

    [ Parent ]
    Right (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:52:32 PM EST
    Their not being able to endorse as a group...the way Obama promised the press all day...is simply out of respect for Clinton.

    Sure.

    [ Parent ]

    Sure, right in line with all the other (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:55:44 PM EST
    respect she's been getting . . . not.

    [ Parent ]
    Could be (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:55:11 PM EST
    but while I don't know any more than you do, it kind of amuses me to see Obama supporters come up with these glib explanations for any adverse developments.

    When that poll came out today showing Hillary doing unexpectedly well in MT and SD (it was probably just a bad poll), one Obama supporter at MyDD was like "voters are just looking to give Hillary a hat tip at the end of a long campaign."  Like I said, it's funny.

    [ Parent ]

    Many senators have given their nod (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Prabhata on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:00:25 PM EST
    Feinstein, Boxer from CA and who can forget Kennedy and Kerry from MA.  It has nothing to do out of respect for another senator.  What it has to do I think is that the Democratic leadership is in the tank for Obama, and the peons, don't want to go that way because they can read the numbers.  If the ARG SD poll is right, that will be another confirmation that Obama tanked after Wright.  The more Obama claims victory, the more the voters go out of their way to show the Democrats that they don't like the ONE.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, they sure can't be watching (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:12:30 PM EST
    the same campaining that the citizens are, or they would be smarter than this.

    While I'm glad all of mine are with Hillary, I almost wish I was in a district where I could vote one of these poor judgment deciders out.


    [ Parent ]

    Feinstein and Boxer? (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by miriam on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:21:25 PM EST
    When did they endorse Obama?  Boxer said she would endorse whoever won California.

    [ Parent ]
    I think the Saturday debacle (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:18:28 PM EST
    showed that there's no requirement to show Hillary respect.

    [ Parent ]
    what will Obama do at his launch party Tuesday (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by athyrio on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:23:04 PM EST
    night when he hasn't got enough delegates to launch?? OH DARN!!!! :-)

    He's got a leaky ship!! (none / 0) (#33)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:33:49 PM EST
    They can't launch it until they repair all the holes!  ;)

    [ Parent ]
    So sad (5.00 / 12) (#5)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:23:31 PM EST
    It's like watching a loved one dive deeper and deeper into drugs or alcohol; you want to help them, tell them they're only damaging themselves and the ones they love, but in the end they only 'cling' to the drugs even more.

    The Super D's need an intervention. Someone needs to tell them what's on the line (the GE, Universal Health Care that works, a strong fighter for Dem values in the White House, a person with SOLUTIONS, not rhetoric, for our country's problems), and that if they botch this up, a large group (a majority, if you will) of their 'family' will leave them to their own devices.

    There is an awful lot of Obamaholism in America today.

    You mean (5.00 / 21) (#10)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:26:00 PM EST
    Friends don't let friends endorse Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    yup, if a friend at a party is caught with (none / 0) (#94)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:54:08 PM EST
    koolaid in their hands this summer, get those car keys right away.

    [ Parent ]
    You said it! (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:27:31 PM EST
    I'd like to know if anyone has a sample letter to send to elected leaders who are supporting the wrong candidate (the one their district didn't go for).  

    It appears there might be some time to send letters to support switching candidates....

    [ Parent ]

    I've been trying to come up with one (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:35:28 PM EST
    But it still ends up kind of angry and pissed off. The Obama fans may think that attracts people to their way of thinking, but I don't.

    Then again, they act pissy and immature and STILL pick up Super D's... maybe there's a method to their madness.

    [ Parent ]

    I wish someone would come up (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:40:32 PM EST
    with a good sample.  Something with some quotes or something meaty in it besides:  "Your district voted for Clinton.  Switch to Clinton or I'll be working to get you booted next time around!"  

    [ Parent ]
    Nice to see they are using (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:23:39 PM EST
    some common sense.  

    Only today, listening to television, this is the first time I got the feeling that the stations are starting to realize this isn't going to be a walk in the park for Obama.  

    Anger is running high among Clinton supporters.  Grrrrr.  Ha!  

    Is Obama still claiming victory tomorrow?! (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:24:15 PM EST
    Have they perhaps jumped the gun? Especially if Hillary wins SD and keeps it closer than expected in MT?

    Sure hope so! (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by NJDem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:27:15 PM EST
    I've been praying common sense will prevail.

    Can you believe it's our last primary-eve?

    [ Parent ]

    What are we going to do next week? We (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:41:39 PM EST
    will have so much free time!

    [ Parent ]
    lol!~ That didn't 'really' occur to me (none / 0) (#23)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:30:48 PM EST
    Not sure if it's good it's the last primaries or not. I don't like having an assumptive nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    Rumors abound... (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by sander60tx on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:39:34 PM EST
    from The Page

    NBC News: At least 34 House members tell the network they're planning to endorse Obama by Wednesday.
    Plus: Uncommitted Pennsylvania Rep. Altmire tells the AP Obama is pushing for supers to endorse during the day Tuesday so he'll have enough delegates to declare victory that evening.
    "He apparently is telling people that he has the numbers, and that's what's going to happen, at which point it would become moot what the rest of us do."

    I'm hoping that many SD's hold off their announcements until Wed.  What is the rush for them to  announce before the polls close?  So Obama can have a big party tomorrow night?  I do not think it is right for the voices of the SD's to overshadow those of the voters of the remaining states.  


    [ Parent ]

    If Obama really had the numbers (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:42:38 PM EST
    he would not be strong arming the delegates with threats that they will become moot if they don't endorse tomorrow.

    Please.

    There were only 4 there today and they could not agree. I thought this was over? I thought all of the congress was against her?

    And FWIW, I don't believe rumors like that when they come from MSNBC.

    [ Parent ]

    Dave McDonald, R&B Committee Member (none / 0) (#100)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:55:40 PM EST
    endorsed Obama today. His statement is literally laughable.

    These superdelegates really have assigned themselves some egotistical power. Either they don't understand their own rules, or they are going to make their best judgment call on when they get to actually cast their votes so Obama can call this a legitimate win.

    This is such a rerun of GWB.

    [ Parent ]

    For all you Obama supporters who don't believe (5.00 / 9) (#63)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:42:40 PM EST
    he's gaming the system read the post above wherein it is reported that he wants the SDs to announce during the DAY on Tuesday.  Can you say supress the vote?  

    [ Parent ]
    Please... (2.25 / 4) (#103)
    by Spike on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:55:49 PM EST
    It has nothing to do with suppressing the vote. The Obama campaign would prefer to get the SD endorsements during the day so the voters can put him over the top tomorrow night. We'll see if they can pull that off or it the SDs push him past the magic number later in the week.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama will do anything (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by themomcat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:55:47 PM EST
    to suppress another primary victory by HRC. Especially if she wins SD and loses by a narrow margin in Idaho.

    [ Parent ]
    sorry, but I couldn't find that (none / 0) (#111)
    by NJDem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:57:30 PM EST
    story on The Page [and your link doesn't work, btw]  

    Are these 34 would-be-endorser's all SD's?  

    And will this development (re: the Senators) change things?

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry... (none / 0) (#190)
    by sander60tx on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:19:16 PM EST
    this should be the correct link

    [ Parent ]
    Is it possible to (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by ap in avl on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:46:25 PM EST
    jump the gun AND the shark in the same motion :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Sure (none / 0) (#92)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:53:51 PM EST
    If the shark is the one carrying the gun.

    [ Parent ]
    But But but (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:25:12 PM EST
    Nancy Pelosi (with some help from Harry Reid and Howard Dean -- who looked SICK on MSNOBAMAC this afternoon) said they MUST act by Wednesday OR ELSE. And it's all in the bag for Obama, isn't it?
    Why haven't they fallen to their knees in worship for him yet?

    This is actually rather encouraging. Maybe they're actually worried about the backlash from their constituents if they act prematurely? In the end, they're pols too which means they value their own seats and their own @sses over someone elses...

    OR ELSE what? (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:27:28 PM EST
    Are those three going to actually grow spines and try and do who knows what? Heh, that'll be the day . . .

    [ Parent ]
    I have no idea (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:32:23 PM EST
    but Madame Chair said she was stepping in. I'm not sure what she can do -- I know as the Convention Chair she's supposed to remain neutral but clearly the ROOLZ don't apply to Nancy either.

    [ Parent ]
    She is going to (5.00 / 15) (#31)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:33:15 PM EST
    turn the car around, if we don't pipe down.

    [ Parent ]
    THIS is why I love this site (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by fiver2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:35:30 PM EST
    Thanks for the laugh, Steve M

    [ Parent ]
    Will someone in Speaker Pelosi's district & (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by wurman on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:45:13 PM EST
    Reid's State of Nevada please send each of them an e-mail reminding them that the Official, Sanctioned, Unitary program for the Democratic Party is to

    keep that powder dry!

    [ Parent ]

    we won't get our pudding. no pudding for us! (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:52:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And no one gets to go to the Dairy Queen in Denver (4.33 / 3) (#66)
    by akaEloise on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:44:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    LMAO, Steve (none / 0) (#58)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:42:12 PM EST
    Will she take impeachment off the table and not let us go to the Olympics?

    [ Parent ]
    She's going to (none / 0) (#130)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:01:49 PM EST
    drive the car into a canal!  

    Hope everyone can swim!

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe when she (none / 0) (#175)
    by Andy08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:13:22 PM EST
    said
    but Madame Chair said she was stepping in

    she meant she was stepping in the direction of the precipice.

    Or.... perhaps was talking about step-ins ?

    [ Parent ]

    They MUST act by Wed? (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by themomcat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:28:01 PM EST
    Why will they explode?

    [ Parent ]
    I had also heard that the end date (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:29:11 PM EST
    could be June 4th or, possibly the end of June. Funny how the end date keeps getting moved up.

    [ Parent ]
    They should (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by themomcat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:32:00 PM EST
    try a date in August.

    [ Parent ]
    They are starting to sound (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:32:47 PM EST
    increasingly worried to me.  I think they underestimated Clinton's supporters.  

    I guess they thought they could say "Get over it" and we would.  

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, it's backlash they're afraid of (5.00 / 6) (#73)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:47:01 PM EST
    This is the culmination of their Attack Dogs of Misogyny gamble.

    I don't get the sense at all that they understand why Clinton's supporters are angry or disgusted (we're just idiopathically angry, I guess), but I think they're having that big 'oops' moment.  It's dawning on them just how Pyrrhic their victory is.

    It's too, too late for me.  No amount of Unity hugs are bringing me back, not from this crowd.

    [ Parent ]

    I think you are right (5.00 / 5) (#136)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:03:20 PM EST
     don't get the sense at all that they understand why

    I was talking to an aide of Debbie Wasserman's and he gave me the head shaking listening thing when I was explaining why women were angry.  

    Then he brought up the SC threat if one should vote for McCain.  I told him we were not talking about uteruses here as if it was any of your business anyway.  We are talking about politics and votes.

    I think he was about 19...probably doesn't even know what a uterus is.

    [ Parent ]

    Heck I'm afraid (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:06:57 PM EST
    that if I get close to th Unty pony I'll contract rabies. It's been clear to me for awhile that the rhethoric against Clinton from the Obama camp has been rabid.  

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe they think (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:07:10 PM EST
    we're all having that "time of the month" at the same time?  You know, periodically we get our claws out...  

    Seriously, I think they grossly underestimated the power of 17,000,000+ people who voted for the one they don't want.  

    [ Parent ]

    It's even crazier when you factor in (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:28:35 PM EST
    the fact that 97% of his lead is from caucus results that were stolen / overblown / rigged.

    Sorry, but the 'Bitter' contingent is much larger than the MoveOn contingent.

    [ Parent ]

    they MUST must must act by Wednesday!! (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Josey on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:34:37 PM EST
    if they don't, the party won't be "united."  Bwaaaaaaaa! LOL
    As if unity were dependent on Wednesday.
    Umm...unity would be more feasible if Obama hadn't made racism and sexism major components of his campaign.
    No Wednesday or any day of the week will erase that (for me).


    [ Parent ]
    Maybe (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:55:20 PM EST
    Mercury goes retrograde on Thursday, so they have to act fast.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh no! (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:58:07 PM EST
    Mercury's going into retro on Thursday. EEEEEK!

    [ Parent ]
    Mercury retrograde was blamed for 2000 (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Prabhata on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:11:00 PM EST
    election fiasco

    [ Parent ]
    Damn (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:53:50 PM EST
    My ruling planet.  Seriously, folks, stuff totally gets stalled when that happens.  Warning: I will make even less sense than usual for however long this retrogarde lasts.

    [ Parent ]
    the more i see the dems, the more i think (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:52:13 PM EST
    about keystone cops. at least the keystone cops were funny.

    [ Parent ]
    Or else ? (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:57:40 PM EST
    If they don't know and understand the rules of the superdelegates, they really need to resign. They've done enough manipulating of the rules and cheating to last a lifetime.

    [ Parent ]
    If Dean looks sick, maybe it is because all (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:58:12 PM EST
    his untruths are taking it's toll.

    [ Parent ]
    untruth = lie (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Prabhata on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:11:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well, well, well (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:27:36 PM EST
    I guess there are some supers out there who are actually thinking for themselves and not allowing themselves to be strong armed.

    How refreshing and very, very unexpected.

    Might put a damper on the big party, no? Especially if she pulls out one or both of the states.

    I wonder how many people are (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:33:52 PM EST
    expected? I'm guessing the "Victory Party" will have it's own historic draw.

    [ Parent ]
    Who? (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by felizarte on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:47:18 PM EST
    Rev. Wright, Fr. Pfleger, Ayers and Rezko? That should draw all the media from around the world.

    [ Parent ]
    Historic draw (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:01:15 PM EST
    Just like his caucuses: No disabled, no working mothers, no retirees, no latinos, no sufferers of chronic illness, no white women over 40, no midwesterners... did I leave anyone out?

    Did HE leave anyone out?

    [ Parent ]

    The bitter (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:11:44 PM EST
    who cling to their guns and religion...

    Don't forget them.  

    [ Parent ]

    Who voted for this guy (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by themomcat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:13:14 PM EST
    in the caucuses? Besides the AA demographic, a bunch of over privileged college kids with lap tops?

    [ Parent ]
    snark alert/now come on! you can only cajole or (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:50:03 PM EST
    sweet talk only so many at a time. dragging them by the arm down the hall while their secretary hangs on to the other arm as it were.  hehehe!

    [ Parent ]
    Good (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Redshoes on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:29:21 PM EST
    Maybe they have some internal polling that suggests that they're at risk of losing their base to McCain.

    You mean the 60% of (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:38:10 PM EST
    the Democrat Party that is female?  

    I can't see them losing the whole 60%...  Maybe 40% though.  ;)

    [ Parent ]

    No need to internals (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:14:48 PM EST
    it's all out there in webland.  Maybe they finally started looking at it.  

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know about the other (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:30:25 PM EST
    senators, but I would be very surprised if Harkin isn't a Hillary supporter.

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:32:49 PM EST
    Seemed to me like most of the Iowa folks were in Obama's corner.

    This takes me back to the 1992 primaries when I was supporting Clinton and my friend was supporting Harkin.  It was the only time I've seen Hillary speak live.

    [ Parent ]

    Harkin has a long history (none / 0) (#40)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:36:20 PM EST
    with the Clintons as I remember.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think that matters anymore (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:35:41 PM EST
    These senators sound like their concern is the more than  whether it's Hillary or Obama.

    There's no due date until August. They all want it wrapped up this week. And it may well be. But it isn't tonight.

    [ Parent ]

    Jeralyn, what do you mean by (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:57:39 PM EST
    "their concern is more than whether it's Hillary or Obama"

    [ Parent ]
    I'm betting (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:11:38 PM EST
    they are concerned about party cohesion. How many people have said here they have jettisoned the Democratic brand? This site is just a portion. They would truly have to lie in an insulated bubble not t relize how damaging this primary season has been. They are going o slight a major Democratc Democratic first no matter who they choose. Now its all about figuring out which demogaphic groups they can most afford to alienate.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps, but what I'm hearing is (none / 0) (#191)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:19:24 PM EST
    that this "riff" in the party is being taken as in other years and all will be forgiven, and all will come home. I believe, this year, it's more than that, and I guess perception is everything!

    [ Parent ]
    That's the spin but (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:28:32 PM EST
    but they might be starting to wonder about their own press right now.

    Lots of folks have been doing things like switching registrations, emailing Dean and the DNC, calling, etc etc.  They may be realizing that this is not the usual my-candidate-didn't-win thing.

    [ Parent ]

    iirc - Mrs. Harkin endorsed Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Josey on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:37:41 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I don't think it would be smart (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:35:16 PM EST
    to have 15 men come out and do a group endorsement of the male candidate.  I know, I know, it is not about Clinton being a woman, but seriously, it would not be a pretty picture to women to see a group of men come out as a group against Clinton.

    Well (none / 0) (#48)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:38:45 PM EST
    Sen. Mary Landrieu is among the undecided.

    The optics of the opposite scenario wouldn't be awesome either, by the way.

    [ Parent ]

    Landrieu is in a very tricky spot (none / 0) (#53)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:40:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I don't see how she could go with (none / 0) (#60)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:42:19 PM EST
    Obama, who is perceived as more liberal.  She is barely holding on in red LA isn't she?

    [ Parent ]
    She has to thread the needle (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:54:04 PM EST
    because she needs every single black vote she can get. here's where she was last year, and I don't think much has changed.

    [ Parent ]
    You know who else hasn't endorsed? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:56:43 PM EST
    Bill Jefferson...

    [ Parent ]
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:58:26 PM EST
    His support is 100% worthless until the minute the clerk calls the roll at the convention next August.

    [ Parent ]
    He abstained I heard (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:02:53 PM EST
    long time ago. He felt it was unfair for him to have that SD status this time.

    I can't swear to it, but I do recall seeing it somewhere...can't speak to credibility of source.

    [ Parent ]

    But if she endorses Obama she will loose the (none / 0) (#149)
    by iceblinkjm on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:06:58 PM EST
    Parishes outside of New Orleans. I am from LA and I've worked the campaign circuit there and infact campaigned for Mary. He's none to popular outside of New Orleans.

    [ Parent ]
    That's why it's in her own best interests (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:08:44 PM EST
    to keep her mouth shut for now and hope the decision gets made without her.

    [ Parent ]
    isn't she in for a tough campaign? (none / 0) (#77)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:47:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I feel the same way... (none / 0) (#89)
    by sander60tx on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:53:10 PM EST
    though I am not sure if all 15 or 17 of them are men, but surely the majority are. It feels bad to me... like they are ganging up on her.  I've felt bullied by Obama supporters and the media, I don't need any elected officials adding to that feeling.

    If Obama already has enough SD's to wrap up the nomination, they'd be smart to just wait until he reaches the tipping point, praise Clinton, and then say that for the sake of unity, they support the nominee.  Wimpy, yes, but it would create less hard feelings and make it easier for Clinton to return to the Senate.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think he has them (none / 0) (#105)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:55:54 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    But wasn't there the "hop on board (none / 0) (#138)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:04:04 PM EST
    now if you want to count" issue put out there? At this point it looks wimpy either way going with Obama, lol!~  ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Much ado about nothing (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:37:31 PM EST
    I'd imagine that this is more press induced than the Senators actually planning on making an announcement today.  

    Probably hasn't changed what will happen this week.  By Friday Obama will at least the required 2118.  By Tuesday of next week Hillary will suspend her campaign.

    What choice does Hillary have?  Run TV ads all summer blasting Obama?  She doesn't have the cash for that and she isn't going to do something that cynical.   There are no more campaigns.  There are no more debates.  There are no more primaries.  

    Assuming the supers fall behind Obama this week, which seems to be what is happening, then there is no point in her continuing to make her appeal to them unless the political landscape changes.

    Her best strategy at this point will be to back Obama and be the good Democrat.  If things seem to be falling apart she could always challenge him at the convention.  If they don't fall apart then she did what she should.  Best option available to her.  

    He only got 4.5 (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:40:13 PM EST
    supers today to her 2. Not really a huge deluge.

    If he can't get 4 to agree when two of those support him?!

    [ Parent ]

    Actually he got 7 (none / 0) (#61)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:42:33 PM EST
    according to DemConWatch.  However 3 of them were half-delegates from Michigan and Florida.  He also received 2 delegates from Edwards' Florida delegation.  

    [ Parent ]
    So actually, (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by MonaL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:06:58 PM EST
    he only got 3.5 delegates, not 4 (or 7)

    [ Parent ]
    My bad, (none / 0) (#156)
    by MonaL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:08:42 PM EST
    He got 5 delegates from MI & FL? That's 2.5 delegates, where are the other 2 to make 7?

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#182)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:16:33 PM EST
    according to DemConWatch he got...

    Connecticut State Chair Nancy DiNardo
    Virginia DNC member Jerome Wiley Segovia
    Michigan DNC member Brenda Lawrence
    Michigan DNC member Lu Battaglieri
    Florida DNC member Janee Murphy
    Washington DNC member David McDonald
    SC Representative Jim Clyburn

    That would be 7

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary's too smart to fall for this ploy (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by felizarte on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:56:49 PM EST
    She can afford to play this straight up and down; letting people know exactly where she stands and simply say, I'll go to the convention. After the primaries, she could selectively give speeches on her favorite issues.  She could pick all the big states she has won if only to say thank you again to all of them and say, "let's go to the convention!"  Let the media amuse themselves with all kinds of speculation that just causes them to have egg on their faces.

    [ Parent ]
    If she does that (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:19:24 PM EST
    the supers will completely abandon her.  

    She has to be the good Democrat after this week.  Even if she fully plans on making it a fight in Denver she cannot fight the nomination for the next 2 months without alienating the supers.

    [ Parent ]

    for once, you and i agree on something: (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:25:16 PM EST
    she isn't going to do something that cynical.

    and therein lies a huge gap between the two. not that i don't think sen. clinton is cynical, she is, as is any politician (or fully functioning adult, for that matter), but not to the degree exhibited by sen. obama during this primary campaign.

    sen. clinton didn't let her surrogates threaten blood in the streets, if she wasn't elected. her surrogates didn't threaten SD's with actively campaigning against them, should they opt for obama. her surrogates didn't make snide racial and mysogonistic comments about sen. obama.

    nope, that was all the obama camp's doing, with nary a rebuke by the good sen. now THAT's cynical! i must give credit where credit is due: regardless of the final outcome, sen. obama has succeeded in raising cynicism to the level of an art form.

    i bet his mother is so proud!

    with respect to the "due" date, hasn't this race been over since IA? at least since super tuesday, or so i've been told, repeatedly, for months now.

    damn, damn, damn that hillary! doesn't she know she should have had the decency to quit, right after IA, so sen. obama could pretty much run unopposed, as he has in all his other political campaigns? damn that woman, what nerve!

    [ Parent ]

    List of Senators.. (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by JustJennifer on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:38:05 PM EST
    It would be interesting to see a list of Senators who are endorsing Obama against the will of the constituents in their district.  Or even a list of uncommitted Senators whose district voted for Clinton.  Would make an interesting email campaign.  :)

    YOu can start with (none / 0) (#55)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:41:02 PM EST
    Rockefeller and Byrd in West Virginia

    [ Parent ]
    Byrd might not be going (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:42:19 PM EST
    to the convention. . .

    [ Parent ]
    I just read that he was sick (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:02:40 PM EST
    I didn't know or I would not have picked on him!

    [ Parent ]
    And don't forget (none / 0) (#75)
    by themomcat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:47:36 PM EST