Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Superdelegate endorsements for Wednesday 5/21

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

Obama leads today's superdelegate endorsements with 2 to Clinton's 1.

Ohio add-on superdelegate William Craig Bashein has endorsed Clinton

Ohio automatic delegate Craig Bashein of Hunting Valley announced his support for Hillary Clinton today. The Ohio Democratic Committee elected him one of its automatic delegates to the Democratic National Convention on May 10.

“Hillary brings a wealth of proven experience in both domestic and foreign policy that provides a great sense of confidence and security in our future,” Bashein said. “She has the strength and determination to beat John McCain this Fall.”
Connecticut Representative Joe Courtney has endorsed Obama
Though he had said he was going to wait until the last of the primaries was over, Rep. Joe Courtney decided to instead make his pick for a Democratic candidate clear this morning, chosing Sen. Barack Obama.

Courtney's was the only district in Connecticut that was won -- in a narrow margin -- by Sen. Hillary Clinton. So, unlike the rest of the state's congressional delegation, he had held out on a presidential endorsement, leaving himself among the last remaining superdelegates.

His choice this morning, which spokesman Brian Farber said he had come to within the last two days, as Kentucky and Oregon decided their primaries, leaves only one Connecticut superdelegate undecided: Nancy DiNardo, chairwoman of the state Democratic Party.
Mississippi Democratic Party chair Wayne Dowdy has endorsed Obama
Mississippi Democratic Party chairman Wayne Dowdy says he is committed to Sen. Barack Obama in the presidential race.

Dowdy is a superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention, and he had been holding off on deciding between Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Dowdy tells The Associated Press that he made his decision Wednesday after becoming convinced that Obama has enough support to secure the nomination. Dowdy says he hopes Clinton is chosen for vice president.

28 comments:

LindaS said...

To the remaining Superdelegates:

Please do your endorsements now so we can end this thing. You are allowing Clinton to hold the party hostage--and she shows NO SIGNS of getting out even after June 3. Please do the right thing and get behind our nominee now before more damage is done to this party.

Thank you.
A Democratic Voter and Contributor

bluedogdem said...

It is offensive that some super delegates will attempt to impose their will and motives over the will of the people of our United States (except of course Michigan and Florida which all 8 candidates agreed at the outset would not be counted) who have provided Sen. Obama with a majority of pledged delegates which Sen. Clinton cannot overcome in the final three primaries. Super delegates should only be able to disregard the will of the people in cases where the presumptive nominee has recently been indicted or convicted of a felony, has died, or has become medically incapacitated to the point he or she cannot carry out the duties of president. Period! The super delegates must stop the Clinton's unjustified dilatory nonsense now. It's killing our chances in November which is their devious goal. Bluedogdem

Kennyb said...

Obama gets Joe Courtney, Connecticut super whose district wnet for Clinton by 400 votes.

http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=80917681-bdf3-4d48-a5b0-bd8ea6d71d1b

Kennyb said...

bluedogdem,

I am an Obama supporter, but supers' endorsements and whether they "impose their will over the will of the people" does really depends on how you cut things. If a Robert Byrd endorsed Clinton this week instead of Obama (just as one of several examples), is it really fair to say he was imposing his will over the will of the people? It depends whose "people" you mean. Byrd can reasonably say that his people are the people of West Virginia, the people who elected him. He can say they are all the people who voted in the Democratic nomination process, as that vote is reflected in delegate totals. He can say it's based on the leader of the popular vote (and you can count that several ways, most of which favor Obama), or the final winner of the popular vote. It goes on and on.

Nick said...

CT Rep. Joe Courtney for Obama:

http://blogs.courant.com/on_background/2008/05/courtney-endorses-obama.html

rallen said...

I am surprised by Craig's decision. He is known in North-east Ohio to be independent minded -- 'Progressive' on many issues, and a 'Republican - stand-in' on others. (He lives in one of the wealthiest precincts in Ohio.)

But I would have bet that he'd support Senator Obama at this point.

DocJess said...

YDA turned down $ 1 million which was offered by a Clinton backer for their Super votes.

So, you never know which way the Clinton graft might be flowing....

NY IP said...

lindas said, "Please do your endorsements now so we can end this thing." I think that it is important to seat the delegates of Florida and Michigan to avoid the possibility of a backlash during the general election. I think they should be seated according to Clinton's best case scenario because it will make Obama's nomination clear. And if Clinton wants to make the popular vote argument let her, it's irrelevant because none of the votes from any of the Caucuses count.

Catherine said...

AP is reporting also MS Wayne Dowdy for Obama

Nick said...

Dowdy for Obama:

http://www.wreg.com/Global/story.asp?S=8359743

LindaS said...

To "ny ip" and others:
FL and MI broke the rules for pete's sake. It's absurd at this point to seat Clinton's best case scenario (for her) and allow FL or MI in any way to decide the nomination (even for Obama). Will the Clinton people keep going until the convention if the RBC decides to punt and does nothing? They have that option, you know.

Gacsaly said...

Superdelegates are called Superdelegates not DittoheadDelegates.

The only reason for having superdelegates at all (which may, or may not, be a good idea) is for them to THINK and CONSIDER, in a very close nomination process (where no candidate has enough pledged delegates to win) which candidate is better for the party and for the American people.

**IF** it were absolutely clear to a superdelegate that Obama just could not win in November, then it would be appropriate to vote for Clinton even if Obama has won more pledged delegates and more votes.

The fact that no candidate has closed the deal before this point HAS MEANING – to carefully consider what all this means is exactly why superdelegates exist.

NY IP said...

"FL and MI broke the rules for pete's sake. It's absurd at this point to seat Clinton's best case scenario (for her) and allow FL or MI in any way to decide the nomination (even for Obama)."

It's not absurd. It's to unify the party. Clinton supporters may even go past the convention, I wouldn't be surprised. If we give Clinton her best case scenario, it will not budge the superdelegates. It doesn't really make a dent. What we don't want is a bitter group of voters who will not turn out in November because they think we snubbed them, although their own republican legislature were the ones who screwed up.

LindaS said...

Well, look, I'm a bitter voter for the way the DNC has allowed this to play out--with Clinton spinning this thing into oblivion. Clinton can do more for party unity by conceding the race and by stopping her threats to take it past June 3.

edgeways said...

Seating MI and Fl in the best case scenario for Clinton gives Obama 0 PDs in MI as he was not on the ballot, which is patently absurd.

Additionally how do we account for the voters who did not vote as they where led to believe, by the candidates, that their votes would not count?

Just because a block of people voted in a given election does not make that election valid. If MN, for example, up and suddenly had a primary vote tomorrow (we had a caucaus)and Obama won that by 70% to 30% and then demanded the popular vote be counted can you imagine the howls that would come out of the Clinton campaign? Or, what if Calf decided to have a do over? Current polls suggest Obama would be allot closer if not out right win Calf if the primary was held today, would that be valid just because there was an election? No, they would not, because they would violate the rules as set down to hold the contest. Just as if a given State decided to vote in the GE the day after everyone else voted, their votes would not count as they violated the election rules, this is no different and pretending a given candidate disenfranchised those voters is an absurd argument.

If the voters in MI and FL have a problem with how their state handled their primaries they need to vote those in power out of office, that is the ultimate punishment in a democracy.

Amot said...

Pledged delegates should be one more Obama, one less Hillary! Her net gain from yesterday is +13 pledged.

I wonder will Obama net gain 13 supers today and tomorrow?

BTW has someone paid attention that Hillary has been endorsed by only 4 automatic superdelegates since May 6th? All others were add-ons...

NY IP said...

Look, my point was this. Even if you give Clinton everything she wants, she still doesn't win. So why not make her lose on the terms she defined while at the same time removing any argument that the GOP would be able to make in the general election about disenfranchising voters. That's all. Not what's fair or what's not fair. I don't see any way for Obama to lose the nomination, that's why I'm not scared of giving Clinton everything she wants, this way she might shut up and accept defeat. If you want to debate the merits about how and why to seat Florida and Michigan, go right ahead.

cs said...

is it just me? or does it seem eerily quiet on the endorsement front today?

could Obama be rolling out a big one later tonite?

PastorGene said...

In response to NY IP, the MI and FL delegates, at best should only be seated with one-half vote. That would still allow the voters to be represented, even though in a way still unfair to Obama. But I feel certain he would still win the nomination.

There must still be some penalty for the rules violation and to prevent chaos in future elections, with all states trying to be first. Reducing MI and FL to one-half the number of delegates or the full slate of delegates with one-half vote each would also nullify the argument about giving the Republicans an argumentative advantage for the general election, since the Republicans reduced these states' delegate slate by half. To wit, parity between the parties on this issue.

Like I said, this still would be slanted in Clinton's favor in an unfair way, since Obama did not campaign in either state and was not on the ballot in MI, but at this point it would not change the outcome of the nomination process.

Hillary Clinton was shameless and hypocritical today in agitating people in Florida with a tirade about "counting" their votes. She is only concerned about this at all because she perceives it would help her narrow the delegate gap. And she totally disregards the fact that she initially agreed to not including these two states like all the other candidates. That makes it not only a matter of changing the rules in the middle of the game but of outright hypocrisy. But the main thing she is accomplishing is stirring up discontent and ill feelings toward the Democratic Party. The superdelegates need to go ahead and put Obama over the top and end this mess. Then the two states can be seated in a fair way that preserves some element of penalty for the sake of future elections.

People are saying that Hillary is now not being negative like before toward Obama. To a degree that's true. However, her actions at this point are trying to de-legitimize Obama as the nominee. That could be just as harmful as a negative personal attack.

sdf said...

Can we provisionally count the 5 previously uncommitted Pelosi Club superdelegates (and, possibly Maria Cantwell as well) after last night?

DocJess said...

The thing about commenting on blogs, or even authoring them, is that while readers see what is written, readers lack the perspective of knowing the author, and therefore, the framework within which the author writes.

I say this because I understand the rules of the blogosphere, and I understand that ad hominem attacks can get you banned from a list.

Since I may well be about to cross that line, and since I don't know the vast majority of y'all, please know that I am a structural pacifist who has never raised a hand in anger, and a vegetarian since childhood, who is physically capable of killing so much as a bug.

And I'll miss this place.....

Today Hillary Clinton stood up in Florida and made a speech about how she, and she alone, would be the only person to have Florida's votes count. How Florida and Michigan are the votes that DO count.

Back in January, I was saying that if Hillary lost the primary, she would stick a dagger through the heart of the Democratic Party because for the Clintons, their own personal power plays, and THEM winning trumped anything else. That winning the presidency was so important to them, that permanent destruction of the Democratic Party, and all its goals and platforms was a minor price to pay, in their minds.

When the discussion arose about whether Hillary should be offered the Veep slot, my comment was that the only real question was whether, when standing on the stage waiting to accept the nomination, she would be on the phone ordering the hit, or whether she would prefer to do it personally. And I wasn't joking.

FL and MI broke the rules -- they must pay a price to prevent anarchy in 2012. Hillary would prefer party anarchy as it ups her chances to compete in 2012, after spending the rest of this cycle actively working (along with that turncoat Joe Lieberman) to get John McBush elected.

She has crossed the line so many times this year -- it is appalling.

From some very visceral place deep inside, I wish her ill. Somewhere, somehow, there must be something that can stop her from the continued damage she is inflicting on the party I love so much.

People have said very bad things about Hillary for decades now. Up to calling her a monster. All of those people understated the truth.

Oregon Dem said...

DocJess:

Your passion and belief is indeed deep. Not sure if you crossed any line. Real close? Maybe.

I too haved and worked for this party since RFK's campaign back in 1968. I do not want to see this party destroyed either.

I keep going back and forth between wanting to believe that Senator Clinton is just trying to have a last "win" before the ultimate loss so that she can make a gracefull exit and the deep dark gut feel that she just may be trying to undermine the entire process for her own (and not the party's) gain.

Time will tell.

cloud9ine said...

believe what you will, but on the day NC and IN went, some said Hillary would concede next day.

In my heart, I knew this was not true. Because if it was so, she would have conceded months ago. She wants to drag this on as long as possible for her supporters to feel a fresh wound still unhealed when they get out to vote in November.

Trust me when I say nothing the RBC will agree to on the 31st will be enough for her. The outcome is going to be her coming out of the room and saying, "I was the only one who spoke for you."

Florida, Michigan, and maybe more states will feel cheated. They will vote Rep, or write her name in. Mccain will win, despite odds.

In short, the Republican legislature and governor of a state did great by pre-poning the primaries. They took out a whole party in a single shot. Clever!

But fellow democrats, join me in wishing that if it so happens, Hillary does not live to enjoy the fruits of her labor in 2012.

Matt said...

SDF - You're welcome to count the Pelosi Club supers. Many people have been for 2 months. We're keeping them separate until they actually announce their endorsement/support.

Kennyb said...

I'm not counting the Pelosi Club yet, and I'll tell you why. It's the same reason, I believe, that we have not seen a flood (or even increased flow) of delegates for Obama despite him winning a majority of the pledged delegates and the media's wall-to-wall coverage of that. It is because he has only won a majority of pledged delegates for now. On May 31, when some delegates are seated for FL and MI, that number will change and then we will know, for real, what the number is to win a majority of pledged delegates. For Pelosi and others to publically declare before 5/31 is essentially sending the message that they are not in favor or seating any FL or MI delegates. It's easier to wait until 5/31 and then do it.

But, please, prove me wrong tomorrow!!

jezebel said...

I'm hoping for clarification on something please-I've heard that the Republican Party stripped their party's Florida convention delegates by 50% for holding the primary early -Is that true?-If so, their voters don't seem to be making a big fuss about being penalized for not following the rules-

Michael Beckner said...

so much spin, so little time to parse it...

those who feel FL and MI somehow deserve to be seated should offer a substantive reason as to why (that is, beyond the anemic "party unity" argument). seating them has precisely one effect: it would punish any candidate who played by the rules after those states broke their own.

even if seating those states would cause no serious disruption in obama's numbers, the argument for keeping them out *still* applies.

the people in those states who are angry or upset should be right hoppin' mad at their democrat leadership for breaking the rules. but by using one candidate's inane analogies to zimbabwe (e.g.) as grounds for being fully counted, they are simply allowing themselves to be spun for the pure political gain of one candidate alone -- not any other candidate, not the party and most certainly not the rest of, well, everyone who has played it fair and square.

at best, FL and MI should be seated with half counts -- keeping just punishment -- with the balance apportioned according to the percentages each candidate holds at convention time. that seems fair.

if there's a manifest need to change the system, and that is worth consideration, then it shouldn't be done at the expense of the campaign by changing that system mid-stream; it can wait.

short of any substantive argument, however, there is simply no justification for punishing one candidate who played by the rules while rewarding another candidate who is exploiting those states' buffoonery.

samm_0607 said...

Here is a quote from an article written yesterday entitled, "My Teacher, the Obama Superdelegate".

"It's been unbelievable," the Oakland County commissioner said Tuesday. "The phone has been ringing 12 to 16 hours a day, constantly. It's been like, 'Vote for Hillary or the world is going to end.' Today, I had 27 e-mails from Clinton supporters asking for my endorsement."

Now I do question the motives behind the endorsement from the woman from Guam who was supported by Obama.