Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Obama campaign?: Don't contact the superdelegates

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at

There's a movement out there among activists for both campaigns to contact the undecided superdelegates to get them to support their candidate. Well, the Obama campaign is trying to stop it:

If I may make one comment on superdelegates. We're all very committed to seeing Barack Obama become the nominee of the Democratic party. Every one of us wants to contribute to make that dream a reality.

When it comes to winning the support of superdelegates, the best strategy is not to flood them with calls, letters, and emails. Oftentimes that can do more harm than help. The campaign has a very well-developed and focused plan to win over each one of these superdelegates' support. Please refrain from sending additional messages directly.

See the comments on the Kos diary for comments pro and con.

Update: Oreo correctly points out that this is not a high-level missive from the Obama team. It remains to be seen if this is official policy or just one staffer's opinion.


Anonymous said...

I'll tell you what though. I live in MD and if MD goes for Obama and Senator Mikulski and Governor O'Malley stay with Clinton both of their offices will get a call, a handwritten letter and an email from me saying that they should vote as the people did since they represent the people of the state and the people of the party in their districts. They will also lose my vote forever if they don't go with the will of the people.

Anonymous said...

You are an unintelligent fool, Senator and govenor of Md does not need your silly vote. do yourself a favor go into hiding.

Anonymous said...

I agree. I've written my local representative to ask him to get in check with his constituency. Granted, it was a polite letter.

I also wrote to the mayor of the city where I live and thanked her for her for supporting the candidate that the city (and state) voted for and for understanding the will of the people. I think it creates a very ill situation when a political leader votes against the voice of the people in which they represent.

Dan said...

Here's a question for those with a little free time on their hands. Let us assume that each of the superdelegates votes the way that their state voted. In other words, let's assume that (a) each senator, governor, and DNC person follows his/her state vote; and (b) each congressman follows his/her district vote.

My question is: what would the superdelegate count be if this happened? Would Clinton still be in the lead? Or would it be tied?

Inquiring minds want to know...

FlyOnTheWall said...


It's a much trickier calculation than your post implies. For elected officials, it's relatively straightforward - either their district/state went for one candidate or for the other. But for DNC members, it's often more complicated. Two slots from every state are statewide - the chair and the vice chair.
But should Alan Solomont, who's an at large member by virtue of his fundraising prowess and terms as DNC Finance Chair, be bound by the results in his native state of Massachusetts? He's on the DNC to represent major donors, so maybe he should vote for the candidate with the most cash. Or, alternatively, he's on as thanks for his years of hard work, so maybe he gets to vote for whomever he wants. What about Randi Weingarten? She could vote in line with her state of NY. But she's only a DNC member because she's the head of the teacher's union, so maybe she should vote for whomever they endorse.

There are hundreds of DNC members who serve as representatives (de facto or de jure) of key constituencies, of major organizations, or as a reward for past services rendered. It's not so simple to figure out how they should vote.

Anonymous said...

Ok, I think a history lesson is in order as there are a few misconceptions about primaries that are muddling this dicussion.

1) There is no imperative for presidential primaries in the constitution. My point being that I keep reading a lot of comments about how "the people" aren't being heard or that democracy is being trumped by the superdelegate concept. Well, "people", I'm sorry to break this to you but the internal decision of picking a party nominee is not required to be democratic. It is a common misconception that the primary system is part of our federal election process. It is not. In fact, it wasn't even around before 1912. Political parties in this country are private organizations not branches of the government. In that regard, they can do what they want and they can grant favors (like superdelegates) to whomever they wish. Any nod to democracy is done as a favor to the people not as a right. If it were truly a democracy, then Republicans could vote in the Democratic primaries and such. Don't confuse the nomination process with the general election. It is not the same.

2) Superdelegates should be forced to follow the popular vote If that were the case, then what would be the point of having them? The popular vote is already represented in the alloted regular delegates so why would you then force the superdelegates to match that. It's simply redundant. Superdelegates are rewarded for their status in the party. If anything, they are the original delegates that would have existed prior to primaries. Given my first point about parties being their own private club, why shouldn't these people do what they want? When you elect an official to represent you, they do so where they are supposed to, i.e. in the running of the government. You don't elect them to represent you to the DNC. The DNC is not the government but a club to which they belong.

Kevin M said...

I am a supporter of Obama, and I was considering writing to Al Gore. He's the one Superdelegate I think could tip the balance in favor of Obama more than any other. And I think there's good reason to believe Gore may endorse Obama-- Obama, I believe, has a stronger message on promoting alternative energy and other environmental causes. I think Obama gets the "Inconvenient Truth" better than HRC.

Anonymous said...

IF superdelegates had to vote by the state they represent this wuld be the total so far for states and territories already voting (except Democrats Abroad)

Clinton 251
Obama 134

This way actually doesnt help Obama since Clinton is winning most of the large population bases and democratic strongholds which obviously have more superdelegates.

boomboom said...

Kevin, Obama is not better on the environment. Check his exact language in the debates, esp. on nuclear and ethanol. Edwards was the best, Hillary second. As a boomer woman, I shuddered when Obama entered the race. Many of us see him as an opportunist. Hillary CAN win in Nov. I'm not drinking the kool-aid, and I hope super-delegate Gore isn't either.

jackie in Missouri said...

I'm not drinking the kool-aid either!!! Most of the young people voting for Obama have no idea how their minds are being swayed. Check out the Peoples Temple and Jim Jones and they will soon find out how the "pulpit politician" Obama,can persuade perfectly intelligent people to think his way and chant obediently.
Thank goodness the superdelegates have an opportunity to think for themselves as our country seems to be going crazy.
Let's hope we wake up before too many have taken a gulp of the kool-aid being passed out under the guise of change.

Anonymous said...

What is the relevance of the last two posts to the comments on this page? Couldn't resist taking any opportunity you might have to bash Obama? With Democrats like you, who needs Republicans?

Jackie in Missouri said...

Blogs are the only place to get my voice heard. The media, other the the PBS stations are totally skewed and are giving most of the air time to Obama, unless it is something negative they can talk about Hillary.
Yes...superdelegates....they may be the only fair mind in the "democratic" process we are seeing. Hopefully, they will not learn how to chant and think of our future, instead.

Pete said...

It's funny, as an energy engineer that has done numerous efficiency projects, this is where Obama lost me. Although he spoke with conviction, he convinced me that he had zero understanding of what he was saying. I figured that same principal probably applies to other issues I know less about as well.

Anonymous said...

This is my favorite! *sarcasm
Republicans have been doing this forever and now DEMOCRATS are, too??!

When something goes for the other guy it is because of a biased system. When something goes for yours, the system finally works!

I am a Hillary supporter, but even I know that the media hasn't been biased towards Obama...THE RACE HAS BEEN BIASED TOWARDS HIM!! I have been biting my nails alot more lately. Let's try to not play the game like the Repubs do.


No, G.W. just screwed up again.



We are better than that, people. How about our candidate has name recognition left over from her husband. Can't we admit that it helps her some??

I think they are both great candidates and I don't want to hurt the party by tearing them apart from both sides!

Anonymous said...

Let the 1st poster from MD know he can start writing and calling. Mikulski and O'Malley have already endorsed Clinton. Apparently Mikulski, being peer to the candidates and both being leaders in their own right led them to "believe" they could decide for themselves who can unify the party and deliver change for our country.

Anonymous said...

Just so you know, the missive to not contact did not come from a "low level staffer" for the Obama campaign -- it came from one of the highest echelons of the Obama campaign -- the staffer assigned to all electronic communication for the campaign. You may also have heard of him as the creator of Facebook. He's been around.

Anonymous said...

It is obvious that most of the superdelegates so far have identified themselves with Clinton. There is also an obvious reason for that, Obama has more rhetoric than substance. It is too bad that the population he is courting is caught up with his slogans and his inexperienced shallow words of change.
Someone help me understand this: Sometimes his voice sounds like Martin Luther King or some other black preacher (he receives AMENs and applause) then he goes back to his normal voice? I must say that his normal voice is very appealing. I get sick and I think the country should object to his mocking the character and spirit of MLK.
Speaking of Katrina relief, Obama says he is not going to forget LA and will provide additional relief. Why do the majority of the general public believe his verbage. When Katrina first happened he did not vote for the first releif package. Clinton did! It was only after some special interests items were added to another bill that he voted for the Katrina relief. I thought he was working against "special interests". Go figure!

Anonymous said...

Who the hell are these "superdelegates" to think they have a right to sit their big fat a**es between the people and their candidate??? Who the hell made this idiotic system???

Anonymous said...

Hmmm a lot of disagreement here. At least the GOP is as divided as we are.

Anonymous said...

The only reason I am supporting Obama over Clinton is that he is the only candidate willing to repeal (or so he stated in a speech given at the Woodrow Wilson Club, in D.C. last year) the Military Commissions Act of 2006. I have heard nothing about this from Clinton or any other currently viable candidate. If Ron Paul were more viable he'd be my number 1 choice (I still hope that either Clinton or Obama will seek him to run as VP).

I welcome the criticism against Obama and Clinton, because I may not be aware of certain things. Like, I had no idea that Obama only supported relief for Katrina victims after spec.interest supporting language was included - as per one of the posters in this thread, stated. That's something to look into, on my part, and hold my candidate accountable for it. But, then again, Hillary has been involved in gang of mess - herself, in the past. And she sat on the board of directors for Walmart, according to Obama (which I have yet to truly verify, but if it is true, then she is just as damned for it).

Another poster in this thread made a great, illuminating point, regarding the true nature of the political parties and how super delegates play a role in it. They are Private Organizations (they are not a part of the government [the DNC or RNC]). They can do what they mandate themselves to do, with no say from us.

There is no politician in this world, and in a position to actually hold power, that is squeaky clean. I dare you to find one candidate that no one has a problem with. Don't worry, I'll wait.


Obama is the only candidate I have heard, thus far, that has actually made a tangible address to an issue effecting us all - our civil liberties. Thursday, Atty. Gen. Mulkasey said that he wouldn't investigate water boarding and the cia, because he basically didn't want to. Congress said, "Fine. We want you to investigate the people who said such actions were alright, and drafted your current policy." So, we'll see how that pans out.

The People's voice is in danger of not counting at all (and leaving up to such retarded institutions of bastardized thought, such as the Electoral College, and these Super delegates - which is of a concept that I simply can't stand.
If you're candidate is not talking about an actual plan that you can understand, then you're simply being herded into another person's perspective of the world. Stop acting like "Sheeple".

JackieZ said...

I am becoming increasingly concerned about the vile attitude I am seeing with the youth supporting Obama. Don't they get it? This isn't just a popularity contest...this is the future of our nation.
This is when we look past personality and look for substance and experience..not a rock star, not a good speechmaker.
Please do not respond with ****s to this comment, it only inforces the profile of the grou(s) supporting Obama.
The media has played down his ultra liberal voting record.
Many of the people who are blindly following him don't really know what they are supporting. "Change" and "hope" are just words...nothing else.

John said...

I take issue with all of the posters who are assuming that the people supporting Obama are being deluded by his "rock star" persona. I do think it is refreshing to have a politician running, who can speak well. I also think that there is much more to what he is saying than the Clinton supporters in this discussion seem to be giving him credit for. The parts of his speeches that get the most play in the media are the parts that are the most visionary and the least focused on specific policy initiatives. Why is this? Because those parts of his speeches are more inspiring than anything we have seen in politics for decades. In terms of policy, Obama is not far from Clinton on most issues. In terms of leadership approach and vision, they could not be more different. Clinton is one of the most divisive figures in American politics right now, and there is nothing she can do about it. The only way she is going to accomplish anything is by forcing it through with 51 percent and hoping it stands when the GOP gets 51 percent in a few years. She will continue the ugly, divisive politics that we have seen since the 2000 election, and probably make them worse. (At least she will if we judge by the way she and her husband have slung mud at members of her own party.) Obama, on the other hand, understands humanity on a more profound level than Clinton does, and he knows that the beginning of curing the ills of society is mobilizing the society, according to common goals. He realizes that Americans have more in common than the party establishments recognize, and he is offering a fundamentally different sort of politics, that we have not seen since the Kennedy's. Obama understands people enough to mobilize cynics, who have never had any hope in government, and get them to campaign on his behalf. His supporters are those who are not satisfied with winning small victories within a hopelessly flawed party system. We are the ones who want to change the system and change the way politics are done in America. I hope and pray that the party establishment and the Clinton machine (which are largely the same thing) don't succeed in derailing the most promising candidate who has come along since the '60's. If Obama wins the vote according to the primaries and caucuses, and Hilary still gets the nomination, I will have lost all hope in the Democratic Party.

vickey said...

I too worry about the following of Barack Obama. I am happy about more young people getting involved in politics but I dont' think most of them understand what a mess our country is in. We are facing so many real problems in America right now that are not going to be solved easily. I think Obama is a fantastic motivational speaker. But I think he could better serve the people if he were not in politics. I believe that Obama and Clinton are very much alike in their policies,but I believe Hillary has the experience to get more things done. She has proven that she can work with Republicans to get things done,she is extremely smart and tough. Some Republicans hate her others I know are voting for her. I have heard a lot of Obama's rhetoric in so many past campaigns and it didn't work. I just hope people stop and really think before they vote. Are they following another dream. I don't feel we have time to waste.
There are so many serious problems facing us right now so please don't be "sheepled"

Rocky said...

What I see in Obama,in that what he says is the same as another President and its not JFK its Jimmy Carter..

Texan! said...

Sadly, the only the I see with the 'experience' is failure to change things in the past. By the way...I'm not a 'young' voter. I am a strong Republican who is supporting change through Barack; since no one with experience has been able to do it yet.

Mercedes von Uppity said...

Interesting. I like both Hillary and Obama just fine. They both have one major thing that bugs me, so they shake out evenly there. On a personal level, I really do like HRC. But I decided to vote for Obama for one reason: Obama has the ability to beat a Republican (any Repub).

Hillary is devisive. Not her fault, but that's how it is. So even if you really believe she can get more done than Obama, then I hope you think McCain can too, cause that's who will end up in charge.

Even if HRC by some chance did win the White House, the ugliness of America's political polarization will only get worse. You think the Repubs are nasty now? Just wait for a Clinton to be back in the WH. I know cause my finacee is Repub and he just won't listen to reason. He hears "Clinton" and foams at the mouth, for no (legitimate) reason at all.

And lastly, all the posters here for HRC have just further convinced me of my choice for Obama. Your rhetoric and arrogance is starting to sound too much like what I hear from Repubs. I won't be a part of anything like that and I won't welcome that in the WH. I like HRC, but you're only proving the Repubs right and not doing her any favors.

hopeful said...

I completely agree with John's post about Hillary being divisive in senate and congress. I fear that if we go with her we will pull an exact 360, where the president is not alienting democrats, but alienating republicans causing 4-8 more years of angry politics. The difference between Obama and Hillary is that Hillary is not afraid to go toe-to-toe in a boxing match with republicans, but Obama wants to go shoulder-to-shoulder with them and partner with them in order to push our country forward. Frankly I am tired of boxing matches. I am not angry, and I am not worried about Obama. The good thing about being young is that you are going to be around for a while, and if he is as good as we think he is, he is only going to get better with age.

hopeful said...

For those of you who worry about the following of Barak Obama,and are concerned of having a motivational speaker as president, I ask you what would you rather have? A president who can motivate people to stop the stupidity and carelessness of ages past, or a candidate who can only motivate using old school tactics that divide rather than unite?

Because as difficult as it seems, in order for things like global warming, energy, and war to change, it must be done by the whole country, not just the president. So in reality, who can motivate a nation to change, Hillary or Obama?

firestorm said...

I bunch of the posts on here are representing "the young people" as being ignorant of political policy and what's good for the country. Speaking as someone in between, not young and not old, I've got news for you; most of them are better educated and more attuned into what's going on than most.

For me, I want change in the political process. I was by no means impressed with the Clinton administration and even less so with the Bush administration. I want someone with a new vision, a new foreign policy, a new administration. Hillary isn't change. This country has been there, done that.

Everyone also talks about experience. My "experience" was the Clinton administration was horrible. Granted, we won't know what we're getting with Obama, but it certainly can't be worse than the last 8 years!

If Obama is the nominee, I'm voting for him. If Hillary is the Democratic nod, I'm voting McCain. I know I'm not alone on that scenario.

Kiran said...

vickey said: "but I believe Hillary has the experience to get more things done. She has proven that she can work with Republicans to get things done,she is extremely smart and tough."
I think Jon Stewart put it best when he asked Obama why people think Clinton has more experience than him. Are they counting her years as First Lady too as experience? Otherwise, they both have been senators only a few years.
And how has she proven that she can work with Republicans better than Obama? And Obama is pretty smart and tough too.. Aren't such statements rhetoric too?
IMHO, Obama has proven more than a few times at being honest and open to listening. He opposed the war right from the 2002. He has rallied enough people in the country to unite. No one hates Obama, even if they don't vote for him. But boy are there enough people who hate Clinton.
I am not well qualified to find out how knowledgeable Obama or Clinton are, but it seems like a simple choice if its between these two people. They both are smart and can manage the presidency I am sure. But I will bet Obama will unite the nation and inspire people. Isn't thay what people want in a leader? Not a manager.

Jeff McDonald said...

Before this election, I have always been Independent. I switched to Democrat just to vote in my states primary. Guess what? In my district Obama won by one vote. How many people like me did it take to make this happen I wonder?

I would like to say that I support Obama for many reasons. Does he sound like a motivational speaker? Yes, I think he does and I believe this is a good quality and not a bad one. I am tired of a President that regularly mispronounces words and names of other leaders. As a person who often speaks in front of people, I find that the ability to speak well is indeed a sign of intelligence. It is not the only sign or even the most important, but it is an indicator. And for that matter, shouldn't anybody that is running for office be able to speak well? Sometimes I am left confused when I see people running for office that can't speak well.

The speaking issue aside, I mean come on I find it hard to believe that a person would vote on or note vote for a person entirely on their ability to speak well, I am far more intrigued by Obama's stance on lobbyist. People talk about some of the biggest problems with the US today and how we need a person to change them. IMHO I think that a majority of these problems have been and are being caused by lobbyist buying power and favors in Washington. It is a clear case of capitalism exploiting our democracy. In Obama, here is a candidate who is willing to not only address tough issues, but to also HEAL THE CAUSE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Not only that, he is willing to put actions behind his well spoken words, something I love to see in a politician I might add. He has not accepted money from lobbyist. I find it hard to vote for a candidate who says they will change "the system" but is taking money from it every day, and thus owing favors on day one. But in Obama I find a candidate who I can believe is actually going to try to do what he says and so it is easier for me to vote for him.

no kings press said...

The agruement goes:

Q: Who will be able to step in as President and immediately be able to implement their policies?

A: It's not HRC.

Fourteen years ago, I was a huge Hilary supporter, even volunteering to work security for her when she came to Washington State in 1994 to endorse our Senate canidates. Yet, I am very dissapointed in the Senator and am unable to support her: I feel she has alienated not only her opponents, but a large chunk of her former base. My main complaint is a seeming lack of integrity about the issues.

BARACK OBAMA IS A PERSON OF NO SUBSTANCE? Huh. It's funny, but I heard very little about "Single Payer" Health Care from Hilary Clinton between 1994 and her bid for the Senate. Why should anyone believe that she won't again roll-over on this issue like she already has?

BARACK OBAMA IS A PERSON OF NO SUBSTANCE? Who, in their right mind, would cast a vote suuporting Bush's decision to invade Iraq? I wouldn't support Kerry's decision or Edward's and frankly, I'm insulted by HRC's claim of political niavete.
Why would you support someone who says they were outwitted by George Bush?

Somehow,this "inexperienced" "ineffectual" individual, has mobilized 50% of the Democratic party. I am sddened and infuriorated to read statements about favortism by corporate media news. Do I think the press is sexist? Yes. Do I think it's racist? Yes.
BUT I KNOW THERE IS NOT A BIAS IN FAVOR OF BARRACK OBAMA IN THE PRESS. The thing the press supports the most is the status quo. Why are 3 out of 4 of the most popular media/polsters, as of Friday,the 8th reporting that Senator Clinton has accumulated more delegates? Only MSNBC's math favored Obama. Why is the bunk story that Obama is being supported mostly by the priveleged still circulating? Why do I hear "news stories" which predict HRC will pick up more delegates in "working class states"?
A)Obama is only supported by the young,uninformed and impressionable.


B) Obama is only supported by elitists and the overeducated.

Why does the media continue pushing the ludicrous concept that Hilary's experience trumps Obama?
ISN'T THE LOGICAL extension of this idea: When Bill Clinton ran against sitting president George Bush SR, I should have voted for Bush because he was more experienced? Nixon over McGovern because Nixon was more experienced?

A snow job is in the works, folks.
We're now being told that those superdelegates know better and are
better than us. We're being told that there's not just weak ideas, but wrong people. This is personal, and the attacks are not geared toward Clinton or her supporters: We're hearing from them that democracy is flawed.

I do not intend to bash Senator Clinton- Her contributions to this country are enormous-Her support for qualified female congressional candidates has been historic. The attention brought to Single Payer Health Care in the U.S., by her support, is unprecedented.
Her diplomatic trips on behalf of International Women's Unity issues have been citizen participation at it's finest.

But it is obvious to me that Hilary Clinton now embodies the entrenched pessimism of the bureaucrat.
She has no moral authority left with which to command respect on that first day in the White House.


Tracey in Texas said...

Some questions/comments:

1) As we all know, the key to an effective presidency is the ability to surround yourself with qualified and intelligent decision makers. (Anyone read "A Team of Rivals"?) It is actually not about who is more qualified. It is more about who owes the most favors. Will a presidential candidate fill their cabinet and other positions with insiders, or people who are highly qualified to do their jobs? (Think Sen. Teel Bivens from Texas who is a completely empty suit, raised lots o' money for Shrub and then went on to an ambassadorship in Sweden! Yeeha!) Or will they execute promises and favors and fill positions with those who are seeking power in an area where they have no expertise? (Should I list the thousands of failings of the Bush administration as a result of this baloney?) Or do they fill their offices with yes men and women? Those who fill slots to return favors are the reason we are in this mess in the first place. Which candidate owes the most favors? Who will choose the right people not the "buddies"?

2) If 22% of the country are die hard liberals and 38% are die hard conservatives, which candidate will draw in the most indies? Does Hillary pretty much have a defined following--dems? Or does she have a huge indie following? Does Barack Obama draw in large numbers of new voters or does she? Guess who these new voters are? Indies and newcomers.

3) Did anyone read the book excerpt in Vanity Fair 2007 about the White House divide? It was clear after reading that article we have the Clinton's to thank for George Bush. The Gore campaign made continual requests to the Clintons as they siphoned money from the national race for the sake of her run for the senate. Here is a link to the article, read it and then tell me she has America's interests at heart.

4) Which candidate have the republicans assumed would be the candidate and have been strategizing to defeat? In their sick recesses, what secret info have they been waiting to unleash? Who have they been working with for years and probably taping each word, comment, and deal? Who are they ready to pounce on? Or, who might they have to walk on egg shells to attack? The republicans are fantastic put-the-foot-in-mouth comedians. How do people react when Hillary is attacked by republicans? How will they react when Obama is attacked?

5) How will the world view Hillary? How will the world view Obama? I think if you read the BBC and other international newspapers, it is clear that we are not only hated right now, but people are hoping for a huge American bust. They are praying we go belly up so we no longer have influence anywhere in the world. No economic influence, no military influence. Which candidate would the world embrace? Would they trust Hillary knowing she gave Bush a blank check? Would they trust Obama knowing he never approved of the war?

6) Which of the candidates is finding fundraising success with the average Joe? Where is the money coming from for each campaign?

7) Did anyone see SICKO? Did anyone understand that Hillary caved into special interest groups representing for profit healthcare organizations and corporations? If healthcare costs are not reigned in and continue to escalate, did you know it will be our only budgetary item by 2050?

8) I HATE to bring this up because I am a woman, but is a woman best suited to negotiate and work with the Middle East right now? How does that area of the world view women? Will they work with her or listen to her?

9) Given that the system (superdelegates) is designed to make sure that insiders ultimately make the final decision, what are we (the average Joe) willing to do/sacrifice to make sure the best candidate is the nominee?

10) Anyone thinking about the other side? McCain will be the nominee. I think he will lose his cool many times, but that will not be enough to lose. Indies like McCain. If we are irresponsible with our strategizing and pick the wrong candidate, here is what could happen...McCain has had many cancers and health issues, he is in his 70s, it is likely he may not finish a full term (after the stress of a long campaign added on to existing health issues). Which VP are we really supporting if we pick a loser? His VP nominee (guarantee you it will be an extreme righty to counter his "perceived" moderate stance) will end up deciding our future. A man who did not even win an election.

I know who my nominee preference is (I am sure you do too). If the worst possible choice is made, I hope dems can fund the election against McCain on their own.

Anyone want to answer these?

Anonymous said...

It's all politics! I'm from upstate NY, residing in a city hit by recession long before today and I would vote for a Repub before that woman ever got my vote. She used NY to get here and really hasn't done all that much to inspire economic growth or to help higher high school graduation rates. She has helped with health insurance - but poverty stricken people who are ill with no jobs are hard to say no to.

Obama may scare some of you and he does seem to be filled with a little more huff and puff, but he seems to inspire people in a way I have never seen in my 30 some years. Kids have a much higher intelligence factor than some of you give them credit for. Maybe they are on to something?

I hate to say it, as it is cliche, but I can run the country better than it has been run for the past 8years!!

So hopefully we can get a Dem who not only inspires us to work together, but who can set our course through this very turbulent and vulnerable time for the USA.

Alan said...

Just for the sake of historical record, Mohandas Gandhi had no political experience when he started. But he knew human character, and he learned how to inspire via example.

An argument can be made that he was the most effective and influential politician in modern history. He steadfastly refused to "play the game" of the time, and inspired so many people to follow his ways that over time the very face of politics was redefined in his image.

Perhaps on some basic level, this is the kind of change that people are hoping to see from Barack Obama? Not an experienced game player, but someone who will refuse the corruption of the past, and possibly redefine the political landscape of America.

Jeff McDonald said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeff McDonald said...

I agree with Allen and would go even farther in saying that I bet Obama's learning curve is very high; he was magna cum laude from Harvard Law after all. He might not have the experience that other's have but after ninety days or six months on the job, I gather he might be able to bring insight and his own unique experience that others would not. And remember the President is a long term appointment, and if a person has done well enough two long term appointments.

Anonymous said...

I can't wait to hear what will happen in MD. I am really excited about what will happen.

Finally found out what a "superdelegate" was. Why don't they explain this stuff thoroughly!? I had to do my own research online. As an African-American woman, it is my responsibility to share what I have learned about all of this technicality of politics.

What's going on with Clinton works either being fired or quitting?

Anonymous said...

Obama has no substance. He wasn't around when folks had to vote for the bill that people keeping referring to as a "vote for war." Hillary vote for a bill that would allow the president to engage in war if, and only if WMDs were found. People read your policies instead of listening to one-liners. Also, Obama didn't work on Healthcare until 2006. He worked on the Lobbyist Reform Bill in 2007. Isn't this convenient? Isn't this a bit calculating you think? I wish Obama supporters actually researched the man they are supporting instead repeat exactly what he says. And, I believe in the Superdelegates. They've earned their positions. And, their votes castes out the possibility of mob rule. Did you all know about our Constitution's intention to prevent mob rule?

Anonymous said...

Please don't accept that authorization for force in Iraq was contingent on finding WMDs. I encourage you to read the Joint Resolution for yourself (AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 - Public Law 107-243 Oct 16, 2002).

The resolution stipulates multiple reason that Iraq is (was) a threat to the United States including:
"Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression
of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace
and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate,
or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;"
"Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the
lives and safety of United States citizens...."

Our illustrious Representatives authorized the President to use the Armed Forces as he deemed necessary to defend the national security of the United States. All the President was required (by law) to do to exercise this authority was to deliver to Congress his determination that further diplomatic means would not protect our "national security" OR would not "likely" lead to compliance with the UN resolutions. I will include full text of the relevant section, in case you don't have ready resources to retrieve it on your own.
I encourage you to seek out the entire text, please do read it. As you read it, please ask yourself if Senator Clinton's explanation today is anything at all like the law she voted for then:

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution.

Anonymous said...

HRC supporters:
Please stop referring to young BHO voters as mindless drones swayed by a pretty face. Its not just insulting but extremely arrogant. I'm not here to elaborate why I support Obama, others have done so. But please note, I can and do read policy papers and I exercise free and intelligent thought. I probably know more about the issues (and the politics of implementation) than the average middle aged voter (but thats my own arrogance). Stop assuming! Ask a young person!

Anonymous said...

Regarding the remark that Obama was "not around" for the vote for going to war, he faced the voters in 2004 with his position against the war from the beginning. Hillary calculated that she would not have to face the voters again until 2006 - playing the odds that it would be over by then. If it had been over and she ad voted against it she could never be elected President because she would have been branded a coward, unwilling to protect our national interests. If you want to understand Hillary, you must understand electoral politics. But, the war has gone on too long and too many have died for her calculus to work. Now she has to make people believe she didn't actually vote for the war. We've seen this all before.

Also, there seems to be an impression that Obama supporters are young. Thank you. Perhaps, that is the idea you have if you voted in a primary and did not see who voted for whom. We caucused in Kansas and, yes, there were young people who came out - my district's caucus site was at the community college after all. I can't be sure what you consider young - folks in their 30's look young to me. However, the vast majority of us on the Obama side were beyond 30 I assure you. I didn't ask everyone I met their age. Out of the 50 or so people I met of the nearly 900 Obama supporters, I'd say only a bit over a handful were younger than 30. Not quite half of us could tell you what we were doing when we first heard JFK had been shot. There may not be many Democrats in Kansas but we make up for it in longevity.

kk said...

It is clear to me that "Jackie" is a Republican.

One word - please. We are smarter than than.

In the next breathe - I am going to say that this person does not have the monopoly on stupid. I am going to say that I will cast a "Not Hillary" vote in November, should Obama not get the nomination.

8 years - Clinton
8 years - Bush
8 years - Clinton

Do the math. Do we need a change - or stay the course? I say change.

wampa said...

Well it's too late, I just got done sending an email to my gov - Oregon - telling him if Oregon votes for Obama in MAY, he had better change his already announced position for Ms. Clinton.
I don't mind his saying who he thinks might be best - I do resent him committing before he hears from the voters. If Or. goes for Obama but Kulongoski goes for Clinton, I will not vote for him again and I think he should know it.

Anonymous said...

Anger and self-serving interests should be left for the GOP. It's their game. Separate and conquer has reality, let's not do it internally. I'd rather have Hillary than another Republican!! Now, I'm not a youngster, I've had grandchildren for years. Why would I support Obama? We need change and Hillary brings in the old school. Obama fired up our youth, and we need the youth to participate and take the lead in the future. As for the superdelegates, they should support the popular vote or they'll see a huge surge in independents. I've always been a Dem, but if the popular vote is ignored, I'll be an independent.

Anonymous said...

Very tired after working for
Obama all day. For me its all changed in the last few weeks. I have watched bush take us right to the edge of fascism. Its no joke.

What is so heartening is to wake last week and hear a crowd in Idaho....Idaho for Gods sake... blowing the roof off waiting in freezing weather to hear Sen. Obama speak.
For all the chicken little- sky is falling -they are all the same im gonna hold my breath and vote for abe lincoln there is no one to vote for nihilist whiny cynical bloggers, its old. Your stuff goes absolutely nowhere. Its useless. Its depressing Enough already.

We have a direction now. We have a man who has stepped up to the job. He is a Constitutional scholar; TAKES NO money from pacs and lobbyists, has inspired millions, has integrity, AND is already established as having a much better chance of beating
Mc Cain.

Repubs are demoralized not that they exhibit any morals to begin with. However, they will come out en masse to vote against Hillary.

Sen. Obama published his economic policies yesterday.
so enough with the lie that he has no solid platform. His policies have been available for a long time
People are just not looking for them Much easier to offer cyncism and uninformed opinion. Useless.
For his voting record go to www. thomas.loc/gov Take a look at
some facts instead of voicing uninformed opinion.
Sen. Obama.. thank you Sir.
Courage, integrity, intelligence, honesty, morality, backbone, energy, .........Yes.

Obama Supporters said...

One way to communicate your concern about superdelegates going against the voters in their state (most of whom are Clinton supers) is to sign a petition. Several states have them (or you can start one at Petitions Online). There are two in WA state: