home

Sen. Salazar: Senators Didn't Agree on Endorsement

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • 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
    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 / 20) (#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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    Kerry and Kennedy. I do hope that Sen. Kennedy is well enough to go to the convention, no matter how I may disagree with his choice. I wish a full and speedy recovery.

    Parent
    the convention is still awhile (none / 0) (#110)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:57:07 PM EST
    and i think/hope kennedy will put getting treatment for his health first.

    Parent
    If he can't go, he'd probably send Caroline K (none / 0) (#140)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:04:31 PM EST
    or someone recognizable from his family to vote for him.


    Parent
    There is such a list online (none / 0) (#107)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:56:12 PM EST
    I thought I posted a link a few days ago but now I can't find the link or my post.  Grrr.  I'll try to repost if I can find it.

    Since I'm from MA, a big chunk of my SDs are voting against their constituencies.

    Parent

    SD endorsement list -votes against constituents (none / 0) (#144)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:05:29 PM EST
    I can't get the link to work for some reason, but a search on 'superdelegate transparency project' should get folks there.

    Parent
    Thankfully I'm a NYer (none / 0) (#150)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:07:08 PM EST
    so I'm suffering from less grief on that front. We just had a Super today from the one county he won, endorse Clinton :)

    Parent
    It occurs to me (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:38:16 PM EST
    that almost every single super delegate, including members of Congress not in South Dakota or Montana, have had to opportunity to vote on this question. So they all know where they stand or where they stood, it's just a question of whether they'll change their minds and when they'll decide to be public about it.

    This is fantastic.... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:39:15 PM EST
    The RBC committee just proved it ain't the will of the people(which clearly lies with Hill), it ain't pledged delegates), the Supers are picking our nominee.  Look at this.  The entire narative has shifted to the decisions of the supers.

    You know what would be funny? (5.00 / 7) (#68)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:45:00 PM EST
    If Hillary started to pick up a few more superdelegates than Obama, and suddenly the narrative changed back to how illegitimate superdelegates are...

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:48:33 PM EST
    And I think it would be poetic justice if he cannot declare victory tomorrow night. Instead it has to be by press release later in the week, and it is all about the super delegates, not the votes, not a victory in a primary, just have the spotlight on the SDs.

    Parent
    That was the old narrative (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:52:15 PM EST
    so everything old is new again.

    I personally wouldn't care what the SDs did if there hadn't been this huge self-righteous BS from people in Obama's camp claiming that the SDs had to vote the will of the people...which, of course, only works when the people in a state that went for HIM. When it was MA, WV, AZ etc., then, of course, people had to vote their consciences (does John Kerry even have one anymore?).

    This sudden rush to coronate him tomorrow just to keep people from voting on Tuesday is just disgusting. New Politics, my @ss.

    Parent

    Oh please (3.00 / 2) (#129)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:01:34 PM EST
    Are you serious?  Do you really think that the Obama campaign is trying to suppress voters in MONTANA and SOUTH DAKOTA?

    Ignoring the fact that polling has Obama up big in both states, why in the world would he possibly care about suppressing those voters?  

    What I suspect the Obama campaign would like to do is have it so that the pledged delegates from SD and MT are what put him over the top, rather than supers later in the week.

    Parent

    That's not politics as usual? (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by MonaL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:14:23 PM EST
    Trying to pad his SD total before the SD & MT primaries so it "appears" he's gone over the top with the outcome of the voting is a pretty savvy political move if you're concerned that your nomination may be perceived as illegitimate.

    Nothing like a little Hope/Change to turn it around though. /snark


    Parent

    Now, you know that Obama can't do it (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:19:09 PM EST
    with pledged delegates to go over the top or right through the middle, because it's a very soft middle.  And that's why he will not have cinched the nomination or for the next three months, no matter what happens tomorrow in the primaries.  No nominee cinches it unless with enough pledged delegates from top to bottom, and he can't close that deal.  Again.

    Parent
    Yes, I do (4.00 / 4) (#145)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:05:38 PM EST
    It's called psyching them out. Tell everyone it's all over, no need to vote, and gee, they stay home, especially the Clinton voters.

    How can you not believe in this when that was the BIG argument about the voters in FL and MI? They were told it didn't count anymore so they stayed home. It's got to be true because Donna Brazile said so!

    Parent

    superdelegates ARE illegitimate (none / 0) (#120)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:59:14 PM EST
    They are a horrible way to nominate a candidate.

    Parent
    And yet they WILL make the choice (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:02:22 PM EST
    Frankly, they're only a little bit worse than caucuses IMHO. At least most super delegates are subject to a real election every few years.

    Parent
    Really? (1.00 / 1) (#141)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:05:09 PM EST
    Honestly, andgarden, I respect your views a great deal but this is more hyperbole than reality.  

    Why should elected leaders have a vastly greater say in nominating someone that regular voters?  

    Caucuses have their flaws but at least it is regular people voting in them

    Parent

    Problem: (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:07:10 PM EST
    people who attend caucuses are but a small subset of "regular voters."

    Frankly, I hate that we have super delegates AND caucuses. I find them about equally objectionable.

    Parent

    That's your choice (none / 0) (#163)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:10:38 PM EST
    Caucuses have been a around a long time.  They do serve a purpose even if that purpose doesn't outweigh the negatives.

    The other big difference the two is that caucuses are creations of the state whereas superdelegates were institutional creation of the DNC.

    Parent

    The DNC could decide (none / 0) (#173)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:12:32 PM EST
    that caucuses are not an acceptable method to apportion delegates, just as they have said that winner-take-all primaries are unacceptable.

    Caucuses are super delegates are products of the same system.

    Parent

    Obviously, you can still have caucuses (none / 0) (#194)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:20:45 PM EST
    to pick delegates, build party support, and blah blah, and have primaries, too.  See Texas, Washington, etc.

    Parent
    Great question! (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by gmo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:07:15 PM EST
    To which I'd add:  why should the 28 RBC members have more say than millions of voters in FL & MI?

    Parent
    I knew it (5.00 / 5) (#162)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:10:37 PM EST
    the argument that we must concern ourselves with the preferences of the people who don't vote was good for Saturday only.

    Parent
    I have absolutely no idea (none / 0) (#176)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:13:59 PM EST
    what you're talking about.

    You used to be a much more reasonable fellow, Steve.  No your only objective is to look for reasons to ridicule those you don't agree with.

    The supers are going to finish the process this week.  They aren't going to flip and start endorsing Hillary.  So your claim that I am flip-flopping my argument is ridiculously flawed.

    I have NEVER liked superdelegates.  I don't change my views on matters simply to suit my preferences on a desire outcome.


    Parent

    He's talking about the justification (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:16:32 PM EST
    the RBC used for addressing the Michigan situation. The primary that they didn't recognize in full had better turnout than almost any caucus.

    Parent
    Well ok (none / 0) (#195)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:21:01 PM EST
    Not sure how that is relevant but I can't deny the truth of it.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:20:26 PM EST
    I'm an extremely reasonable fellow, just one with less patience.

    I've been listening to confident proclamations of imminent victory for months and they have gotten more than a little tiresome at this point.

    Parent

    You haven't heard me say (none / 0) (#204)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:24:46 PM EST
    anything about a victory before the primaries ended.  As a matter of fact I REPEATEDLY said that I saw nothing wrong with waiting until the end of the primaries to decide this thing.  I actually thought it was great that every state got to vote in a meaningful way.  My state never did before.  

    I will say that the race ended in North Carolina.  Had Hillary been able to win there she could have taken the nomination.  That was her Waterloo.

    I have been saying that this would be over by June 10th for about 3 weeks now.  I will stick that particular prediction.

    Parent

    Well, June 10th is my birthday (none / 0) (#213)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:28:39 PM EST
    So I'm holding you to that!

    Parent
    Well, they are nominating our candidate. (none / 0) (#127)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:01:06 PM EST
    There is no escaping that.

    Parent
    I assume you meant (1.00 / 0) (#133)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:02:30 PM EST
    your and not our?

    Obama already had the pledged delegate count locked up.  They are simply reaffirming the results from the primaries.

    Parent

    Well, no (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:05:13 PM EST
    There is no obvious will of the people. The super delegates will make their own decision.

    Parent
    Which... (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by gmo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:05:15 PM EST
    ...flies directly in the face of the reason they were created: to exercise independent judgement and consider all factors before making their decision in a very close race.  In fact, this is the ONLY time SD's are actually valuable -- when the vote tallies are this close, they should be doing their jobs and help make a clear-headed decision, not just follow the pledged delegate count.

    Parent
    He does not have (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:06:55 PM EST
    enough pledged delegates to lock up anything and he still won't after tomorrow.

    He needs supers...period.

    Parent

    That is a nice bit of (none / 0) (#210)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:27:41 PM EST
    circular reasoning.

    He wouldn't need the supers if there weren't any supers.  

    Parent

    What if (none / 0) (#188)
    by MonaL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:18:49 PM EST
    the pledged delegates change their minds by the time the convention rolls around?  Wouldn't it be in Hillary's best interest to be around when the other shoe drops? Screw party unity, the dems won't have it until this is resolved to everyone's -- that includes my -- satisfaction.

    Parent
    Unless, of course... (none / 0) (#131)
    by gmo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:02:07 PM EST
    ...history proves us wrong, and the SD's had the opportunity to use the power that was intended to be put in their hands to avert a Dem loss in November.  


    Parent
    No (3.00 / 2) (#155)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:08:29 PM EST
    They would still be terrible.

    Superdelegates were designed to explicitly deny opposition to the party apparatus by grass roots campaigns.  If the party is so weak that it can't overcome a grass roots campaign then it deserves to lose.

    Parent

    Apply that description to Caucuses (none / 0) (#139)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:04:18 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    Could I find myself having some respect (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:47:42 PM EST
    for Ken Salazar, is he actually relying on original thoughts at this moment :)  If he is sincere about this I'm going to have to stop calling him Ken Nighthorse Salazar.

    Is that a nefarious reference to (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by wurman on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:53:46 PM EST
    Ben Switchhorse Campbell?  the turquoise turkey?

    Parent
    colorful and funny! (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:58:47 PM EST
    Funny story (5.00 / 5) (#126)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:00:56 PM EST
    The position of Democratic  leader in the Senate was down to one vote in 1994 between Chris Dodd and Tom Daschle. Daschle got Campbell's vote by proxy at the last minute, and not long thereafter Campbell was a Republican.

    Parent
    James Clyburn (5.00 / 7) (#87)
    by IKE on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:52:32 PM EST
    James Clyburn endorsed Obama today, he said that he had been neutral all along but is now siding with Obama to help bring the party together. What a bunch of crap, he has been anything but neutral. He spent so much time bashing the Clintons, one might think he was enhancing his resume for a job as commenator for MSNBC.

    I'm waiting for DB's surprise endorsement ;) (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:09:31 PM EST
    Whoever will she be endorsing? (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:17:22 PM EST
    Don't tel me I want tobe surprised when Donna maks her announcement? :)

    Parent
    I'm wondering if this strongarming for Tuesday (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:53:49 PM EST
    during the day is a way to get some good press to avoid any negative media associated with the Rezko trial.  Seems I remember that the jury had agreed on all but one count, so maybe there will be an announcement tomorrow.  

    Nobody wants to be in the "Obama 27"... (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by gmo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:54:41 PM EST
    ...or however many SD's are needed to finally end this race, because of the superdelegates left, those 27 go straight to the top of the Clinton s**t list.  

    After those 27 declare, the rest have the easy job of saying "well, it's decided, so sure, I'm going to go ahead and go with the winner now."  And NOBODY wants to be known as that final tipping vote, so they're waiting to cast their vote until it's totally obscured, and they won't be held accountable.  

    So everyone's trying to play chicken, daring everyone else to jump in first.  That's why there wasn't a decision en masse from those four senators today -- there's no actual courage of conviction, no real "thinking" happening. It's just fear of betting on the wrong horse.   I know that's awfully cynical, but I think that's what's happening.

    That must be it (5.00 / 7) (#114)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:58:03 PM EST
    one thing that's become clear in this primary is, no one wants to say anything negative about the Clintons!

    Parent
    ROFL! (none / 0) (#123)
    by gmo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:59:57 PM EST
    Touche!  

    But you know what I mean -- the SD's that are left have the nasty responsibility of being the final, deciding votes in this mess.  They're probably scared of that responsibility, and the liability that comes with it.

    Parent

    I think the Senators at least (3.66 / 3) (#154)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:07:47 PM EST
    may also be worried about having to go back to the Senate and work with the person who doesn't get the nomination knowing they'll have to deal with him/her for the next 4 years. I do believe Reid when he said he was staying neutral just for that reason -- I suspect the Senators are trying to keep the bad blood down just a little.

    Parent
    Nah. (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by gmo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:10:28 PM EST
    Clinton's faced worse situations.  She entered the Senate in 2000 facing the people that voted to impeach her husband and drag the Clinton name through the mud.  Granted, most of those people were on the other side of the fence, but I don't think they're worried about being in her bad graces, because she's proven she can work through worse.

    Parent
    But but but (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:12:29 PM EST
    she's the mean monster lady/psycho ex girlfriend. She might try to take them all out. /snark

    I do think it'll be a bit tense for a while, esp if some of them know they're being weasels for the sake of fake unity.

    I dunno -- we'll see. I'm preparing for the worst, will be relieved if it's anything but.

    Parent

    What about Claire McCaskill? (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by MonaL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:22:57 PM EST
    I wouldn't speak to her ever again. What a mean little person she turned out to be.

    Parent
    Prisoner's dilemma (none / 0) (#167)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:11:39 PM EST
    times 27.  I like it.

    No sympathy from me, they ran right into this one.

    Parent

    I can't wait 'til tomorrow. (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by mexboy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:56:07 PM EST
    I'm tired of reading all the speculation. I think I'm going to need an AA group or at least a good political deprogramer.

    On a lighter note, this site rocks!

    thats cute ! (none / 0) (#124)
    by thereyougo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:00:22 PM EST
    Solidarity (none / 0) (#208)
    by Wry on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:26:18 PM EST
    Hey Mex Boy,

        I know what you mean! The suspense is driving me loco. and my housework is not getting done. the bills are piling up. If this goes to August, and I hope our girl sticks it out, I'll need a month in rehab.
    Care to join me?

    Parent

    HILLARY a voice of reason throughout all this (5.00 / 5) (#121)
    by thereyougo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:59:26 PM EST
    is just following the rules. No one can shout otherwise. They both don't have the required numbers to claim nomination, therefore August or until whenever Hillary or Obama drop out.

    Heck Jesse Jackson needed 1200 delegates and HE took it to the convention. You can't tell that to the kidz because some of them weren't born yet! I bet they are ones shouting loudest.

    civics are they still teaching that?

    Kennedy took it all the way too (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Prabhata on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:24:37 PM EST
    and he was going against a sitting president.  The interesting part is that Carter lost the general election.  Maybe Kennedy should have gotten the nomination.

    Parent
    Jesse Jackson (none / 0) (#216)
    by manish on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:31:19 PM EST
    How did that election go for us?

    Parent
    I think they couldn't agree on which one of them (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:59:38 PM EST
    would be the lead singer for KUMBAYA.

    Obama has been placed in limbo until August (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by thereyougo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:11:56 PM EST
    and cant effectively campaign or raise money for the GE while McCain throws him body blows, weakening Obama thinking it will be him, but it might not be.

    That has to help Hillary. If Obama's limping to the finish line tomorrow he'll be hobbled by McCain though the summer. It'll be his own fault too, because he anointed hisself before the convention.

    I can see the bumper stickers, Still Standing Hillary '08

    I have really bad feeling (5.00 / 4) (#185)
    by themomcat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:18:21 PM EST
    about how ugly this Presidential campaign will get if Obama is the nominee. If he runs his campaign for president anything like he has run his primary campaign, this could get very, very ugly. The Republicans will not hold back like Hillary has.

    Parent
    Here's a positive reality (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:17:40 PM EST
    Here's my guess:

    1. Hillary will not cancel, concede or otherwise relenquish her delegates / votes; she probably WILL put her campaign on hold so she can cut down on the staff size, save some money, and breathe a deep breath for the second round. Which is:

    2. This is where her ability to convince and win over others will come in handy; the Super D's. She will probably spend between now and August behind the scenes, approaching Super D's, getting their ears and providing the facts on hand. Bill and Chelsea are more than enough power to keep Hillary's campaign alive and fresh on the road.

    She hasn't had the chance to woo the Super D's because of the primary schedule... now's the time to do it. It will still be a toss up if they decide to go with Obama or not; Richardson proved that Super D's can lie to your face about support, so we won't know until the Convention.

    I think that Obama will likely be the nominee, but that likelihood is higher than the likelihood that I will vote for him. He's not likely-able enough.

    Just more lies (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:18:46 PM EST
    from the great DiseNfranChisers.  The fix is in from the very beginning.  How the heck did a virtual unknown get this far?  

    http://tinyurl.com/2anrtw

    Great writing (none / 0) (#223)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:55:33 PM EST
    The part about the Repubs purposely putting up Keyes to force Obama in to line... seems they did it to force him up too early in his career so he would be easy to take out.... interesting.

    Parent
    I'll tell you if you tell me (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:22:23 PM EST
    where you heard about this site....  :)

    No.. really, if you tell me, I will give you the run down....

    DailyKOS (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:25:56 PM EST
    is calling you.

    Clyburn - undeclared until today - YEH RIGHT! (5.00 / 5) (#214)
    by dlkincaid on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:29:31 PM EST
    The Democratic Party is a disappointment, but Nancy Pelosi is even a greater one. I do not understand women who try and destroy other women, understanding that they are merely taking the side of men who hate women and could possibly turn on them at any time.

    I do not have any respect for the DNC - most of all Nancy Pelosi. She rode in on the back of several women and have tried to destroy Hillary. If anyone thinks this woman hasn't chosen a nominee is ludicrous. Ted Kennedy is very ill and the disappointment I feel toward him is only surpassed by the last statement I heard him say about Hillary.

    I will never vote for a republican, but I have no respect for any of the democrats who have actively tried to destroy the Clintons. Obama is a joke - he has not been able to even speak to a Black issue.

    Clyburn is a gatekeeper from South Carolina who jumps when those in charge snaps their fingers. He is as big a joke as Obama to me. I am a Black woman who are not very proud of my people and many will consider me as an ole Black woman who doesn't know anything. I will put my knowledge up against of these young people around Obama - I sure as hell know that we only have 50 and not 57 states. Give me a break.

    I love this frequent fear mongering (5.00 / 2) (#215)
    by Serene1 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:30:57 PM EST
    by O supporters. The alternate to not voting for O as painted by them is an Armageddon like situation.

    Who would have thought that Democrats would be the ones using the crutch of fear to promote their candidate.

    You're a troll. But to humor you and educate you: (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:35:49 PM EST
    There is no nominee until August, at the convention, after a vote.  So there will be no "stealing" of a nomination.  There is no nominee, I don't care how many declarations Obama or anyone else makes.  I think I heard big orange call you name.  Please answer the call.

    txpolitico... (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by miriam on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:49:56 PM EST
    Great article, if scary as h**l.  Finally some explanations for a number of seemingly irrational events. The only thing NOT working against Hillary Clinton's nomination has been her voters.

    I don't know what happened (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by miriam on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:55:41 PM EST
    to txpolitico's post, but here is the link he gave.

    http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html  

    In order to unify the party, (5.00 / 2) (#226)
    by VJCMAJD on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:58:55 AM EST
    the remaining uncommitted super delegates will be endorsing Sen. Hillary Clinton.

    Site Abuser: pope (3.00 / 4) (#164)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:10:44 PM EST


    Hm? :) (none / 0) (#196)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:21:15 PM EST
    Ratzinger! (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:23:24 PM EST
    Be nice! (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:24:20 PM EST
    It's not a pope-ularity contest.

    Parent
    yeah, what does this mean? (none / 0) (#4)
    by NJDem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:23:06 PM EST


    Why do they have to do the group hug thing? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:24:01 PM EST


    I thought Obamedia reported today (none / 0) (#11)
    by Josey on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:27:14 PM EST
    "17 senators are meeting now..."

    >>>Harkin said 18 senators were invited to today's meeting. Four showed up but a larger gathering is expected, Harkin added.


    Maybe they do not want to be part (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by felizarte on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:29:50 PM EST
    of an ORCHESTRA especially because they are beginning to have doubts about the conductor?

    Parent
    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by felizarte on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:37:29 PM EST
    and they could not play the chords for Hail to the Chief!

    Parent
    nice analogy... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:58:48 PM EST
    Looks like the others didn't show up (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:33:08 PM EST
    Only 4 did, and they didn't decide to endorse anyone.

    Parent
    Great message for us (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:37:54 PM EST
    The Senators might start a trend: It's OKAY to not support Obama.

    Parent
    Wonder if 2 were mine from Wisconsin (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:16:03 PM EST
    where, despite the overwhelming primary win blah blah blah, neither Feingold nor Kohl has committed yet.  (Yes, Feingold may have tipped his hand, but then it's even more interesting that he pulled back and wouldn't commit.)

    As an analysis of the mood in the "superstate of Minnewisowa" put it today, Obama is weak in Wisconsin, with more {bitter, clinging] blue-collar voters than most states.  And as for the site of the  self-coronation by Obama tomorrow, Dems and especially Franken are facing some serious problems in Minnesota, the focus of the analysis.  The bottom line appears to be concern about coattails for ye olde downtickets.

    Parent

    It's interesting because Salazar... (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Dawn Davenport on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:27:36 PM EST
    ...is from Colorado, which is one of the states that Obama's campaign claims it will win even if it loses those pesky delegate-rich states like Florida or Pennsylvania.

    And yeah, Feingold doesn't usually hold back; I love how he stated that he voted for Obama but is holding off on declaring as a super-d. Not to mention his chastising Obama's supporters a couple months ago for their boorish behavior.

    Parent

    Great. Suppress the vote on the eve of the ... (none / 0) (#13)
    by dwmorris on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:27:19 PM EST
    final primaries and then say "never mind." The news I saw left me with the impression that 17 Senators were meeting. Now its a "small group" out of a total of 15, and they couldn't decide.

    Will we ever get the truth from the MSM? Not if Clinton is involved.

    this makes me wonder just who is (none / 0) (#70)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:46:18 PM EST
    running this fall. they just might be worried about damage to their poll numbers.

    Interesting List (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by themomcat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:49:33 PM EST
    would be all the Democrats up for re-election and who they support as delegates.

    Parent
    Nightline hit on Hillary! ugh (none / 0) (#104)
    by Josey on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:55:53 PM EST