WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com
Obama leads in superdelegates today with 3 superdelegates to Clinton's -1.
He has also added 2 Edwards pledged delegates from New Hampshire.
California Representative Dennis Cardoza has switched his endorsement from Clinton to Obama
Congressman Cardoza said, “This is the most important election of my lifetime. While I continue to greatly respect and admire Senator Clinton and feel she has made history with her campaign, I believe that Senator Obama will inevitably be our party’s nominee for President. He has proven himself to be a thoughtful, knowledgeable, and inspirational leader and will take America in a new direction, which we desperately need.
“I am deeply concerned about the contentious primary campaign and controversy surrounding the seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan – two states Democrats need to win in November. I will not support changing the rules in the fourth quarter of this contest through some convoluted DNC rules committee process. Yet, we must find a resolution to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates so these states’ voters are represented at the Convention. I believe we need to avoid this potentially divisive situation by uniting behind one nominee and bringing the party together immediately. Therefore, I have made the decision to support Senator Obama at the Democratic Convention in my role as a super delegate.”
California Representative Jim Costa has endorsed Obama
Oregon DNC member Jenny Greenleaf has endorsed Barack Obama.Congressman Costa said, “It’s been a long presidential primary season, and now is time to bring it to a close. I have tremendous respect for Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, and all the candidates who ran for the nomination. In my opinion, it is clear that Senator Obama will be the strongest presidential nominee for the Democratic Party.
“I did not come to this decision without careful consideration. Our nation is faced with serious challenges here at home and abroad. Because the next Administration and 111th Congress will face such difficult and divisive issues involving our energy needs, greater fiscal responsibility and international security, it is imperative that we have someone who truly has the skill to bring out nation together and close the partisan divide. I believe Senator Obama has the leadership skills to bridge the differences that exist today.
“In my conversations with Senator Obama, I explained to him that our San Joaquin Valley is the number one agricultural region in the country and in the world. Before the election in November, he needs to come to our Valley and understand the water challenges we face, the diversity of our farm crops, and the combination of the wonderful ethnic communities that make up Valley families, which is truly a reflection of our nation.”
Jenny was the first superdelegate we spoke to after starting our lists. I know she'll be happy that we won't bug her anymore to find out who she's going to endorse. She told us all along that she was going to wait until after Oregon's primary and she kept her word.
The voters of Oregon have spoken, and I have listened.
I will be supporting Senator Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention in August. Senator Obama has the vision and leadership ability to move this country forward and to undo the damage done by the Bush administration. I am proud to support him in this endeavor and will do whatever I can to make sure Oregon's electoral votes are Democratic this fall.
2 additional Edwards delegates have endorsed Obama this morning. We have updated the numbers in the sidebar.
del.icio.us
54 comments:
Obama is buying super delegates.
How sad. It should be illegal for presidential hopefulls to give money to super delegates.
These supers don't care about winning the white house in Nov, which Obama can't. They just want money for their own campaigns.
If someone has donated money to a campaign, it should be illegal to transfer it to another campaign, period!
It's not democracy. It's kickback.
Assuming a split in pledged delegates of 47 for HRC and 39 for Obama in the remaining primaries, Obama will need only 17.5 more to clinch at the 2025 number. Of course, that number may change on May 31, before the PR, MT and SD.
On a more daunting note, HRC would need 19 uncommited superdelegates for every one Obama gets to reach 2025 herself.
s.b. - perhaps you should tell that to Clinton too. How do you think she had a 100 superdelegate lead over him before the primaries even started?
Oh btw, Clinton was the recipient of some of those "kickbacks" you speak of. He gave her money for her 2006 Senate campaign - which she transfered a lot of money that was left over from that Senate campaign into her presidential bid. - So in essence - she may have taken money from him and put it into her presidential campaign.
I have good information that OR-SD Jenny Greenleaf will endorse Obama today. When contacted she made no denial.
s.b.,
Where are you getting this info from? I follow every news site and major political blog out there and have found no documentation to support this claim.
Here's a bit of advice:
When someone says something unusual, particularly when the news hasn't picked up on it, verify the statement by looking for documentation. For every statement, there's a trail. If that trail goes nowhere, then it came from someone's imagination.
The Young Democrats turned down a Clinton supporters offer to buy their votes. Are you angry because Obama's obvious fund raising prowess along with a 50 state voter registration and GOTV plan that is so well financed is convincing superdelegates, while Hillary is failing miserably in these areas because she isn't even able to finance her own campaign wo racking up massived debts?
boo hoo
http://www.newser.com/story/28173.html
Gray, I think S.B. is trying to suggest that donations from Obama's leadership PAC, some made years ago, somehow count as bribes. First, the donations aren't that big (I think they're limited to $5000). Second, when that was happening we called it "helping Democrats get elected" and "retaking Congress". That's supposed to be a good thing.
The donations were to congressional candidates, and it's silly to think that those people existed only to act as superdelegates in a hypothetical Obama presidential campaign at some point years in the future.
Plus, of course, Clinton has made similar contributions.
Obama has something that everyone in the Democratic Party wants: new donors and motivated volunteers. Every single person in the party would love to be able to tap Obama's donors. Unfortunately for Clinton, her supporters, while vocal in their support and their insistance they will sink the party if she isn't the nominee, are not backing her up with small donations and time (which is part of the reason she is in the position she is in). The superdelegates don't need to be paid to see the writing on the wall: Obama's supporters will support him with cash and time, not threats.
gray - she's talking about PAC's that are set up by each campaign (their Congressional campaigns). Link
But here is documentation of - Clinton taking money from Obama's PAC
kcindc,
Thanks. I just looked it up. Here's what I found from Nov 30, 2007 in the Washington Post:
"Obama's Hopefund Inc. distributed more than $180,000 in donations to political groups and candidates in the early presidential voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and more than $150,000 to federal candidates in other states with primary dates through mid-February. The donations accounted for nearly three-quarters of the money the PAC has given out since this summer."
Considering that Obama was 94 superdelegates below Clinton on 1/13/08, I think you're right. His campaign donations in early 2007 are not the cause of his current lead in superdelegates. His gain on Clinton's superdelegate lead was slow and steady, and it paralleled his success in the elections.
Thanks again for the reference. s.b.'s comment seemed to come from out of the blue.
Any word on the names of those two Edwards delegates?
Cardoza's switch is very significant in that he references the divisive efforts of the Clinton campaign in their belated attempt to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates. For those who don't know, Howard Wolfson (Clinton's campaign director) yesterday admitted what we all had suspected. That the Clinton camp are not just pushing for the seating of the Fl and Mi delegations but that they are demanding that 100% of the Clinton delegates but that Obama should get none of the Uncommitted delegates from Michigan.
This to me really is the last straw when it comes to decency and honesty and reveals the obsessive desperation that has gripped the Clinton camp. This has not gone unnoticed by Clinton's supporters. NY Gov, Paterson, has also come out today and asked her to stop this nonsense.
You know, it's ironic that the Clinton camp raised Zimbabwe as an example to support their case. Well, we can all see with our own eyes who is playing the role of Robert Mugabe.
This is a great shame. Hillary is better than that and I can't help but feel she is being very poorly advised at a time when she needs those around her to be honest with her. As an Obama supporter, I would like to see her hold on to her reputation and act as a leader of the Dem party in the Senate for may years to come and perhaps stand for President again one day. She is close to defecating all over that possibility.
Peter Burling and Deb Nelson. Burling will be replacing Clinton Superdelegate and current DNC member GiGange, but AFTER the Convention.
And, alimum, the Obama campaign is the only group with access to the addresses of those millions of donors who have given less than $200 combined. Campaigns are not required to disclose detailed information on donors who contribute less than $200. How much do you think THAT list is worth to the Democratic Party?
Thanks, independentvoter.
This is a great line from that article: "Obama's PAC contributed to Clinton's 2006 New York re-election and in the current cycle to Jeanne Shaheen's Senate campaign in New Hampshire though her husband, Bill Shaheen, heads that state's Clinton campaign."
Obviously, Obama had additional political motives, but this makes the PAC argument pro-Obama, not anti-Obama. He's a staunch supporter of everyone in his party.
Something else to consider at this point is there will be disingenuous bloggers circulating, especially at this time, trying to foment anger and bad feelings.
I've no idea if s.b. is or is not a disingenuous blogger, or if they are just a Clinton dead-ender, but it is worth keeping the above in mind nowadays.
s.b. Is just a Clinton Troll, feel free to ignore.
Kind of like a McCain troll but with no chance of victory in November
On Kos yesterday, there was a link (which I didn't follow) to the McCain website indicating that if his people went out on the left wing blogosphere (Kos said they were named, I don't know who the rest were) and posted McCain talking points, and then showed the McCain site that they had, that they would get "points".
I don't know what their prizes are, but it's a game -- so when someone like SB is here, I can only assume he/she is trying to encourage Democratic division, and he/she is really a Republican plant.
I say, just ignore the posts -- take the time instead to lobby the Supers to get with it already...
You're welcome gray -
you wrote - Obviously, Obama had additional political motives, but this makes the PAC argument pro-Obama, not anti-Obama. He's a staunch supporter of everyone in his party.
-------------
Absolutely! It doesn't do much good for him to get elected and not have a supportive legislative branch to push through his agenda.
If the Superdelegates really thought this through they would come out NOW with their endorsement for Obama....BEFORE the Rules Committee meeting on May 31st. That meeting will be a farse. The broke Clinton campaign is funding bus loads of supporters to sit in the 'peanut gallary' to intimidate the Rules Committee members.
If the DNC allows the election of the voters (those that worked within the published and agreed upon RULES) to swing to Clinton - or even to put demands that Clinton is the VP - the party will have lost MILLIONS of young, Independent, and center Republicans......once they vote Democrat the party can usually count on 50% or more to continue to vote Dems. What a sad affair Hillary has created and the woman doesn't seem to care!!
From Al Giordano at The Field as blogged on 05/21/08 this may be Obama’s plan –
“I suspect, that after giving Senator Clinton enough rope to continue to behave ridiculously as she did today in Florida for the next ten days, the Obama campaign may - a day or two before the May 31 Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting - pull the chair out from under her and call for seating the whole shebang, looking gracious and magnanimous in victory, and leaving her presidential campaign hanging by the rope of its own making.’
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1246
why are so many americans so stupid. S.B.for example. She, because I believe is a female,is suggesting that Obama is buying superdelegates. Isn't this an stupid comment? Only a Hillary suporter (an older woman or uneducated men) would think that. Even if he were buying them, would you say that Hillary didn't use that strategy too. What about the cocktail partier she was throwing for superdelegates at her DC mansion? These parties were even talked about in the mainstream media.
Mary -- KEEP HOPE for that peanut gallery -- I'm one of a bunch planning on trying to win the lottery and fight for the forces of truth and light......and believe me when I say we can yell louder than they can!
Great, so far that means a plus five for Obama...1 CA Rep Switch + 1 CA Rep + 2 Edward's Dels and a -1for Clinton.
Now if some remaining SDs would show a little intestinal fortitude, follow Kennedy's and Byrd's lead, this will be over very quickly.
This is a fantastic URL, 2008 DCW that is.
s.b. must be a paid Clinton and/or McCain blogger.
Welcome to the winning team!
Go away Hillary Clinton. We don't want your toxic campaigning anymore.
Listening to the WAMU politics show, it sounds like Councilman Jack Evans, DC's at-large Clinton delegate, has said he'll vote for Clinton at the convention after all, even though he's decided personally to support Obama. Haven't found anything online about it yet, though.
Mary: I think he has to do this. He has to take the wind out of the Clinton sails. But as they have all along, they will move the goal posts once again. They are already suggesting no delegates for Obama from Michigan. Will they start challenging credentials? What are the odds that this could end up in litigation?
Add one more for Obama. Jenny Greenleaf, Oregon Super, has announced her support for him. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/23/102924/202/568/521163
Will endorse doesn't meet our requirements.
If she does endorse we will add her once it's official
Yeah, Oreo, that's the one sucky thing about this site -- you guys are honest and cite your sources.....I think a lot of us ObamaNation members just want it to be over, and instead you guys insist on being FAIR AND HONEST.
(Seriously -- I love your standards, and that unlike most everyone else, y'all have them)
SDs since May 5th:
Obama +68.5
Clinton +10
Hey guys,
I think you made a mistake in the MI/FL sidebar and added Edwards' two pledged delegates to Obama's superdelegate total instead of his pledged delegate total...it's currently adding up to 853 superdelegates instead of 851, and 3,564 pledged instead of 3,566.
Fixed
Thanks
Independent voter wrote : "Absolutely! It doesn't do much good for him to get elected and not have a supportive legislative branch to push through his agenda."
I agree with your comments, but I have to say that it sent a chill down my spine being an Illinoisian. We are a state with a Dem governor, and a completely Dem legislative branch, yet we have total gridlock in Springfield.
I wish Governor Rod Blagojevich had as much sense.
I just trust (and believe) that our junior Senator is a much wiser man that our Governor.
Breaking scoop from Al Giordano at The Field
“The Cardoza 40″: Exodus of Clinton Delegates Begins"
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/
can somebody tell me why the obama campaign didn't actively support a reelection in michigan? especially since he's leading in the polls (or at least was last time i looked)...
now you hear complaints from clinton supporters who say their campaign has suggested such a thing.
i'm actually a bit concerned that hillary is quite aware this race is over for her, but want's to create some kind of "dolchstoßlegende" (maybe the reason why her campaign demands no obama delegates be seated in MI?, which could make it more likely that there will be no solution at all), minimize her efforts in supporting obama for the general election, hopes he looses and thus getting a chance to run for president in 2012?
Max,
They did support a reelection. However, both compaigns were staunch and wouldn't meet in the middle on a compromise as to the rules of the redo primary
hey s. b.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-clinton-s.html
looks like clinton bought a few delegates too
If this Cardoza 40 exists, I don't see why they don't come out more quickly. Every day this goes on is detrimental to Obama and the democratic chances in November.
The Oregonian's Jeff Mapes just wrote the following in his blog:
After his big presidential primary win in Oregon on Tuesday, Barack Obama looks ready to reap a big harvest from the seven remaining undecided superdelegates.
Jenny Greenleaf, Oregon's Democratic national committeewoman, just announced a few minutes ago on Blue Oregon that she is going to endorse Obama. Meredith Wood Smith, the state's party chairwoman, told me Thursday that she's already made up her mind and expects to announce next week, as do several of the other superdelegates.
Greenleaf put her decision simply - "The voters of Oregon have spoken, and I have listened," she said - and I suspect that reasoning will be followed by most of the superdelegates who have remained silent so far:
Thought on why superdelegates (specifically, the "Cardoza 40") may wait until after July 3 to endorse:
I think that everyone may be painfully aware of how much people do not want this to be seen as a "stolen election" - hence, enough superdelegates will come out for Obama that, on June 3rd, the normal pledged delegates that he will likely win, will put him over the top for the magic number.
Thoughts?
Much as I would prefer it to be otherwise, the "Cardoza 40" thing is completely made up. If there were 40 Clinton superdelegates who had all decided to switch to Obama to bring an end to the process, they wouldn't "be coming out, one or two at a time, and announcing their switch between now and the convention". They would all come out between now and June 1, because they would be smart enough to know that is there still isn't a nominee *well before* the convention, then the odds of *any* democrat winning the general election are very small.
Of course, there still is going to be a slow trickle of Clinton superdelegates over to Obama, as they gradually move over to the winning team. But that won't be because of any group agreement between a large block of them. It will just be individuals gradually deciding to switch sides on their own. I fully expect the guy who wrote the "Cardoza 40" article to take credit for it, however.
We would not have to worry about bribes if we had no superdelegates. Get rid of them!
Oy Vey! Is Bill Clinton Shppoing a Yenta? Find out here:
http://www.onemillionstrong.us/showDiary.do?diaryId=1182
The money given by the Obama campaign to superdelegates is public record.
It's legal but it shouldnt be.
He buys superdelegates.
By the way, there is no map of the electoral college that shows Obama winnning. He loses to mcCain. Hillary wins.
Go to electoral-vote.com
If dems want the white house they will vote Clinton in Denver. If they don't want to win they will let caucuses in republican states and 90% of the black votes in Republican states, a la Georgia, Mississipi, Louisiana, South Carolina which will not go Dem in Nov to determine the nominee.
He can't win and he doesn't win the electoral college in any scenario.
I know you all will scream racism, but I'm just stating facts.
Thank you, thank you. the more the merrier.
Obviously, clinton's contributions to supers is public as well. This is not 'buying' super delegates. Though in another forum perhaps we can agree on the corrosive influence of money in politics. Perhaps you are just upset that clinton cannot raise money like obama can.
Your electoral college math is specious at best. Obama has, as yet, campaigned little in CA and NY. He will easily win them in Nov. Indeed he likely wins anywhere clinton can win in Nov. And he will likely bring into play States which will totally reject the much despised clintons. Here in TX they are less popular than Satan. Yet, if Obama were to choose Richardson as VP, Texas will likely be in play this Nov. At least, McCain will not be able to ignore us and still count us.
Riiiight, s.b. And you've so kindly supplied that public record! Stop the anonymous smear campaign and go away--please! :-)
S.B.
Your comments are inappropriate, distasteful, and in my opinion, they completely cross the line.
actually SB, you are not stating facts because you are misusing the data from electoral-vote.com in a way that ignores the caveats that every pollster gives on polls.
Electoral votes divides their maps into 7 categories: Democrat leading by more than 10%, Democrat leading by 5-10%, Democrat leading by less than 5%, tied, Republican leading by less than 5%, Republican leading by 5-10%, and Republican leading by more than 10%. They do this because the person running that site understands the limitations of polling.
The biggest limitation of polling is that it does not give a precise picture it gives a "fuzzy" picture. If you have one candidate leading a poll by 49% to 45%, the pollster would tell you that the poll means that candidate A (the one currently in the lead) could be anywhere between 52% and 46% in actual support and Candidate B could be anywhere between 48% and 42% in actual support (with undecided being between 3% and 9%). In other words, a lead of less than 5% in a poll is considered to be statistically meaningless.
For that reason, those states shown as "barely" could go either way. Excluding the barely and tied states, the results on electoral-vote.com show Obama leading McCain 230-206 and Clinton leading McCain 282-176.
In addition, polls taken at this time of year are considered inherently unreliable. Typically, at the end of a primary battle, there are hard feelings between the supporters of the two candidates. These hard feelings show in polls taken during the primary. In the vast majority of campaigns, those hard feelings are put to the side by most of the supporters by November and each party's candidate will get somewhere between 80% and 95% of those who self-identify as belonging to that party.
In other words, most pollsters would tell you to expect Obama to gain 2-3% in the polls once the primary is done.
Finally, some of the states shown on electoral-vote do not have recent polls. A poll from four weeks ago is not necessarily still valid. That's why during the fall campaign, you will see weekly polls from all of the states, and daily polls from the close states.
In short, the polling data shows that both Democratic candidates are competitive with John McCain. Senator Clinton does slightly better than Senator Obama on a state-by-state basis, but not by enough to justify overturning the leader in pledged delegates.
To all the super and what ever you call yourselves. Why are you going against the primary vote. Did you not hear us? I suppose my vote was wasted and did not matter. Well, maybe McCain is the man. Now do you hear me?
g
Hello G,
Pull your head out. You are just another poor sportman that is taking their ball home because they didnt win in the first round.
Post a Comment