Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Superdelegate endorsements for Tuesday 5/27

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

Final count for the day, Obama +1, Clinton +1

Wyoming Democratic Party Vice Chair Nancy Drummond has endorsed Obama

After much thought and prayer, I feel the time has come for me to endorse a presidential candidate. This isn't a decision I have taken lightly but after listening, watching and reading about both candidates, I feel that Senator Obama is the candidate that can lead this Country in the direction I would like to see us go.

His position on education, his work with senior citizens and his advocacy for union members and veterans make me proud to support Senator Obama.

My husband was a Marine during Vietnam -- he was one of many vets that has VA Benefits. The men and women in the military and their families are giving the ultimate sacrifice now and I support Senator Obama's plan to honor their service by improving their healthcare, taking care of issues related to combat duty and caring for our homeless vets.
DNC member Kevin Rodriquez of the Virgin Islands has switched back to Clinton after he switched to Obama on 5/10. The Clinton campaign has confirmed this switch. We are hoping to get more info from Rodriguez.
Virgin Islands automatic delegate Kevin Rodriquez announced his support for Hillary Clinton today. Rodriquez is a member of the Democratic National Committee.
And we have finally heard from Rodriquez himself:
This week, he announced his support for Clinton again.

"I decided to switch because that's my right," he told The Associated Press on Wednesday. "I don't want to say why I decided. It's not about me ... It's about America and what's best for America." - AP
Ben Pangelinan (GU) has endorsed Obama.
“I am honored to cast this most crucial and valuable vote to determine the next President of the United States. It is because of the nature of this vote, that I have taken such deliberate and measured consideration before making my decision,” Pangelinan said in a press release.

42 comments:

Rambling Johnny said...

Sometimes I even surprise myself! Obama is banking Super Delegates for a showdown after May 31.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/obama_campaign_banks_superdele.php

arvindh said...

Hope this is the first of many endorsements to come this week for Obama.

craig said...

Sen. Obama only needs to pick up another 6-10 SDs between now and the cose of MT and SD primaries on 6/3. If he gets 25 vs. 30 in PR plus 9 vs. 7 in MT and 8 vs. 7 in SD then he will gain 42 pledged delegates from the primaries. He would only need 7 delegates to reach the current magic number of 2026.

Keep in mind the Pelosi club SDs--with these Sen. Obama doesn't need any SDs, but unfortunately, these would come after 6/3. My hope is that MT and SD pledged delegates will put him over the top.

Allyn said...

The thing to be concerned about is the DNC's decision on Florida & Michigan. As I understand it, Hillary actually has more "supporters" on that committee than Obama. I suspect, that they will try to make it beneficial to her without CHANGING the outcome. Hopefully they'll put some spin on NOT counting the popular voates (which is ridiculous), and insisting that she concede.

Partofthehope said...

Obama picks up 2 more delegates.

NBC NEWS has updated the delegate counts in Alaska and Colorado, giving Obama one more and Clinton one less in each state. In Alaska, Obama picks up a split of 10-3 (instead of 9-4 after he got the two statewide PLEOs at convention). In Colorado, Obama gets a split of 36-19 (instead of 35-20). Obama's pledged delegate lead is now upped to 149, his superdelegate lead moves to 34, and his overall lead stands at a combined 195 (including the 12 Edwards delegates).

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/27/1067357.aspx

Kennyb said...

As usual, NBC is way behind. DCW already has these changes in the delegate tracker chart. The split in Colorado is based on GP (and CNN already had it 36-19 as well) and DCW's weekend post had the Alaska switch. Chuck Todd and First Read are hampered by having to use NBC's "official" numbers.

edgeways said...

Allyn: I believe she has more supporters on the RBC than Obama, but there is essentially 3 factions, Clinton's, Obama's and Dean's.
Clinton does not have more supporters then the other two combined, so I expect whomever comes up with the compromise that Dean's faction can agree with will carry the day.

Rambling Johnny said...

Beside late in the game who know if her backers are still well belonging to her anymore.

skywaker9 said...

There is a rumor out in OR that we'll get a bunch of superdelegates declaring (esp. chair Meredith Wood Smith) soon. Some of them have said publicly that they have decided but are waiting for what I don't know.

Independent voter said...

I just read on another blog that Joe Lieber....er traitorman - is allowed to attend Denver even though he is not a Democrat and he is supporting John McCain. Is this true? And if it is true, WHY would the DNC allow him to attend?

ahoff48 said...

Here is an article about the Oregon superdelegates:

http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=102954&sid=1&fid=1

I hope they come out soon. All the suspense is too difficult to take. Go Obama.

KCinDC said...

Allyn, remember that this committee is the same one that stripped the Michigan and Florida delegates in the first place. Not all the "Hillary supporters" are going to be as willing as Harold Ickes to pull a 180 and denounce the penalty they themselves voted for, especially at this stage of the contest.

It seems unlikely that a majority are going to be willing to vote for seating the delegates from the fake primaries with no penalty at all, thus completely undermining the DNC's authority to have any control over the process next time.

Joel said...

There is a point everyone has forgotten. Rachel Maddow brought this up in her show last week, and it is quite important, I think. If MI & FL aren't resolved or nullified by May 31st, Hillary can appeal the decisions all the way to the convention and force a floor vote. By her counts, Obama needs 90 superdelegates in order to prevent this from happening. This is a weak showing to prevent Hillary from drawing this out until August.

Brad said...

Oh my gosh. If people don't stop quoting Rachel Maddow, I'm going to scream. George Stephanopolous of ABC News said this morning this has "zero" chance to going to the convention. Relax.

Kathy said...

I would like to know how anyone "KNOWS" if this thing is going to the convention or not.

Only time will tell.

Joel said...

Just out of curiousity, what's George's rationale for stating that this won't go to the convention?

Brad said...

He says the superdelegates will move fast to shut her down... and that party bigwhigs won't allow it.

Allyn said...

Anyone heard further information on the "Cardoza 40", a group of delegates and superdelegates that are ready to pull out of Clinton camp and endorse Obama?

craig said...

My understanding is that the RBC decision can be challenged, but such challenge is the proper jurisdiction of the Credentials Committee. If this is the proper procedure then George S. is correct. Keep in mind, the candidate that has a clear majority of delegates going into the CC usually has sufficient power to determine the outcome. This is particularly true when the party is faced with a potentially divisive challenge that could jeopardize the GE--with the committee leaders rallying around the presumptive nominee in an attempt to keep the party together.

If the RBC decides in favor of, for example, the MI party proposal (O/59:C/69) and Sen. Clinton challenges that then she risks being perceived as the person keeping the MI delegates from being included. This would force it to the CC, where she is likely to lose. There is a strong possibility that despite a failure of the Clinton campaign to persuade the RBC to support their desired outcome the option to challenge could prove too costly--and the decision to let it go [finally] would have to be made. FL is another matter.

Aside from the campaigns' desired outcome there is still the matter for the DNC. Some penalty must be exacted or else the DNC may be viewed as either ineffective or unwilling to maintain a national party organization, which would constitute a failure on the part of the party leadership to maintain and strengthen the organization responsible for furthering the party's agenda and it would deny future democratic candidates the support we/they need on the national, state, and even in some cases the local level.

Tom said...

Something important to keep in mind is that if Florida and Michigan get counted in any way, 2025 is no longer the "magic number". Increasing the total number of delegates increases the number needed for a majority.

Any of the proposed solutions to the FL/MI issue (other than excluding them entirely) leave Obama worse off: both closer to Hillary and further away from the finish line.

edgeways said...

I trust George Stephanopolous about as far as I can throw a Hummer, that is not at all. Given his performance at the ABC debate I'd go outside and check if he said the sky was blue.

tom, yes that is true, but it is also the last gasp of the C campaign, so while it closes the margin it doesn't erase it. Add to this that it seems that O has at least 20% of the current remainder SDs banked (according to various reports) well... lets just say we have a week to go before it is all done... thank god.

(if it goes beyond that it is time for direct non-violent action)

Don said...

I think you're wrong, Tom. A 69-59 negotiated settlement in MI, which the state party is proposing, would be a clear win for Obama. Yeah, she gains 10 net delegates, but he's ahead by 200, so 10 delegates more or less is insignificant.

On the other hand, she would lose the last fig leaf of respectability that her MI popular vote "mandate" should count for anything.

David HG said...

According to Halperin, Kevin Rodriques (Virgin Islands) has switched back to CLINTON after previously moving over to Obama.

That would nullify, if true, Obama's gain today and put him back up to 49.

SarahLawrenceScott said...

The day to watch for superdelegates is June 2. If Obama could possibly do it, I'm sure he'd love to go into the June 3 primaries about 15 delegates short of whatever the RBC decides the magic number is. That would mean the last primaries to give him the delegates that get him across the finish line, which would have terrific public relations value. If not, he'll win on June 4 when the Pelosi-types weigh in, but that gives Clinton more of a talking point if she wants to keep fighting than a June 3 win from the Montana and South Dakota delegates.

(There's also a weird spin issue that could come up. If the RBC decides to count the MI results in some way that includes "uncommitteds"--say counting pledged delegates at half--the Obama campaign has to convince the media very quickly to count some of the uncommitteds for him. That's a point where blogs like this can be crucial to the discussion!)

Vixx said...

Hillary does not want a solution to FL,MI on the 31st. She will appeal, and it will go to the CC, which will be decided in AUG at the convetion.

Then she has 3 months to change the minds of all the SDs

Its so ovious, and yet everyone still thinks this thing is going to end on Jun 4th.

Why would anyone think that? Hillary has been saying all along she is going to fight to the convention. She has setup the perfect sticking point, seat FL,MI as is, which is an unreasonable request.

So she will drag the fight to the convention, and all we can do now is hope the party comes back together in Sep/Oct.

Its too late to stop her from dragging this to the convetion. The SDs should have been voting NOW to claim the nomination prior to the 31st.

Matt said...

SarahLawrenceScott - check the blog later this evening for updates on the Michigan 36 - we're thinking the same way...

Tom said...

Don, I was speaking purely based on the numbers.

Right now Obama's at 1977, Clinton's 197 behind at 1780, and the finish line's at 2025; Obama needs 48 more delegates.

For the sake of argument (this does not take into account Florida or superdelegates), let's say we award MI delegates in a 59-69 split right this second.

Obama goes to 2036 delegates, Clinton goes to 1849 delegates, and the finish line moves to 2089 delegates.

That leaves Clinton 187 behind, and Obama needs 53 more delegates; the gap is smaller AND Obama's further from the finish.

Figuring in Florida and the MI/FL superdelegates just makes things worse. I'm dreading the RBC meeting; it stands a chance of making this drag on way longer.

Matt said...

Rodriguez (VI) moved back to Clinton. Pangelinan (GU) added for Obama.

Ian said...

Kevin Rodriguez's switch back to Clinton is so curious.. so curious...
I wonder if HRC is trying something, perhaps she asked him to switch over to Obama at a time when nobody would really notice and then switch back from Obama, hoping that other SDs in the Obama column would follow?

edscottwy said...

Maybe Obama dolled out token Wyoming and Guam SD's today (I'm from WY, so no disrespect meant), and he is holding blocks of CA and OR SD's that he's saving for Hillary's last ditch desperation efforts.

John said...

The sourcing for Kevin Rodriguez seems pretty dubious to me. The Clinton campaign released a press release, with no quotes, saying Rodriguez announced that he was endorsing them. Nothing suggesting a switch, nor anything suggesting any kind of actual announcement.

The guy endorsed Obama only a couple of weeks ago.

What exactly is the context for the quote in the Clinton press release that they give?

If it's true, it's totally bizarre, but the sourcing still seems really weird

Rose Szymanski said...

Give me a break super delegates it is up to you if you want a win in November, Nominating obama is going to give the republicans an easy victory. Obama is so wet behind the ears you can see the water dripping off his ear lobes. If you want to win in November you will nom,inate Hillary Clinton she can beat McCain!!!!!

mumblin said...

rose that would be like the iraqi people voting for saddam's son to replace him...

out of the frying pan.. into the fire.. innit love ;) or is it sweetie ?

GDB said...

Why isn't the GUAM delegate listed for 5/27 for the daily endorsements?

tmess2 said...

Am thinking we may need a "Prufrock" category of delegates for those who can't make up their minds and go back and forth between the two campaigns.

As for taking it to the floor, my understanding is that based on the current rules, it takes 20% of the credentials committee to endorse a "minority report" that could be considered on a floor as an alternative to the report of the majority of the committee.

I have not seen any site that has comprehensively broken down how many standing committee members each candidate has won from the states, but given how close this race has been (especially in light of the states that Clinton narrowly carried being some of the larger states), but I would think both campaigns would start with more than 20% of the credentials committee. However, without having names and knowing something about them, it is impossible to speculate as to whether or not the "Clinton" committee members would actually vote to take it to the floor (especially given the slim likelihood of winning a floor fight).

p smith said...

The poster who said that Clinton's strategy is to make unreasonable demands vis a vis Florida and Michigan so that she can then take the issue to the convention, is correct. However, it is clear to me that the majority of undeclared superdelegates are only prepared to give her so much rope and on June 4 they will either endorse Obama or they (and Clinton's own declared delegates) will privately tell Clinton that she has 24 hours to pack her bags or they will pull support from her. She will then have no choice but to walk.

In a way I am glad that she is exiting without grace and integrity as it means that Obama is no longer expected to offer her the VP job which would have been disaster.

As for Rodriguez, unless he has himself made a statement that he is endorsing Clinton, I really don't think any reputable news organisation should take this at face value. I don't doubt for a minute that he has been bullied into changing his mind but he should have to come out and explain it (which he will of course struggle to do).

Rose Szymanski said...

This is for mumbling. I would rather have someone in the White House that knows what they are doing instead of someone that reminds me of dog chasing its tail, and knows the truth without being lied to by advisers. But first you need tonominate a winner in November and it is not Obama. He doesn't have the ability or the qualities to be a leader. he doen't like the flag(all of a sudden he is wearing a flag pin why didn't he war one a year ago or six months ago) he doesn't like the national anthem because it glorifies war, doesn't he know when it was written, and the main reason is his wife read her college thesis,don't tell me that hatered she thrives on didn't rub off on her partner remember the old saying birds of a feather all flock together.

Allyn said...

Rose: I realize that there is a lot of women out there, that would sell their soul for a woman president. "If not now, then when, if not Hillary, who?" The problem is this..... it's HIllary.
This woman would never be considered for President, much less dog catcher, if she wasn;t cashing in on her husband's past. It wouldn't be too difficult for me to support a woman for president. The problem is Hillary. I have never liked her... going way back to her days as a governor's wife. She's a phony, second rate mind. Her favorite pronoun is "I". It just seems to me that some women are so desperate for a woman candidate, they's accept anybody.... even Hillary.

nanc said...

This thread is for comments on the superdelegates that endorsed. Other comments about the viability of your candidate should be on the Open Thread.

Rose Szymanski said...

This is for Allyn maybe you wouldn't want her for a dog catcher but at least she'd get the job done.She didn't have a grandmother that was vice president of a bank she was raised poor just like me. She knows what the United States needs not Iraq, Not Iran, Not Syria, lets get this country like it was when "her husband " was president with everyone working and earning a living and not in a war for oil. Did you ever take the time to listen to her speak or listen to her answers at any of the debates and why does Obama refuse to debate her because when he does he not only loses the debate but the next primary election he can not beat Obama by the Allyn who are you going to vote for?

Ian said...

Rose,

Hillary was being ridiculous, trying to have debates like almost every week. This wasn't necessary and Obama would rather use the time to speak to the people rather than argue with Hillary over policies that they pretty much share with a few degrees of difference. Rose, if you really think Obama is not the right choice for president, I deeply implore you to look over his policies on his website and compare them to Hillary's. You can see right there that he is so much more prepared (the fundraising issue also proves that) and once the public gets involved, he is able to carry out these policies. His message of hope actually works because it should take the people, not one person, to run the country. That is the true definition of a president. As for the Middle East, Obama's willingness to be diplomatic with them is genius. Have you heard of "keep your friends close but your enemies closer"? By doing this, this would prevent potential further terrorist attacks to the United States. I'm telling you, open up your mind and change your perspective of this man. I would not be surprised if the country demanded changing the 22nd amendment to allow Obama to run for a third term after 2012.

Rose Szymanski said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.