Monday, June 02, 2008

Superdelegate endorsements for Monday 6/2

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

So far today Obama has 5.5 superdelegate votes to Clinton's 2. Obama has a total of 7 endorsements today which equal 5.5 superdelegate votes.

Connecticut State Chair Nancy DiNardo has endorsed Obama


“Senator Barack Obama has helped to energize thousands upon thousands of Democrats in Connecticut and across the country. He has inspired the electorate and won their confidence by demonstrating sound judgment, strength of spirit, dedication to those in need, and belief in the transforming power of community. Although we are blessed to have two outstanding candidates for the Democratic nomination this year, Senator Obama was the choice of Connecticut Democrats on February 5th, and he is my choice to head the ticket in November.

Virginia DNC member Jerome Wiley Segovia has endorsed Obama.
"While sharing the valuable international experience of spending a portion of my formative years overseas in a similar fashion as Senator Obama, I am excited to add my support to a campaign that has clearly demonstrated a commitment to an inclusive national field campaign, has shattered all previous campaign fundraising records, and is supportive of alternative sources of energy to begin to solve our energy crisis. I believe that with Senator Obama's leadership the DNC and all Democratic party groups and programs can continue building upon the amazing progress already begun by Governor Dean and his team."

Louisiana Party Chair Chris Whittington endorses Clinton


“Hillary Clinton has what it takes to turn around our economy and rebuild the middle class,” Whittington said. “There is no question that she is the strongest Democrat to go toe-to-toe with John McCain in a general election. It is our responsibility as automatic delegates to choose the candidate we believe best fit to beat Senator McCain. That candidate is Senator Clinton.”




Michigan DNC member Brenda Lawrence has endorsed Obama


"I was undecided, but he's worked hard to show that he's the best candidate," Lawrence said before Obama arrived at the high school, where 2,000 supporters waited in excited anticipation for the probable Democratic presidential nominee.

"The be
auty of it is that we have two strong, dynamic candidates," she said. "But the reality is that the numbers have to add up."


Michigan DNC member Lu Battaglieri has endorsed Obama


Michigan Education Association President Lu Battaglieri says he also is endorsing Obama. That gives Obama seven Michigan superdelegates, tying the number rival Hillary Rodham Clinton has in the state.






NY DNC member Irene Stein has endorsed Clinton
“This has been the most difficult political decision I have ever had to make in my entire career,” Stein wrote in a press release.

“Our county voted by a strong majority for Barack Obama in the Democratic primary,” she said. “On the other hand, the New York State Democratic Committee, who elected me to my position, seems to be overwhelmingly for Sen. Clinton, as is our state’s delegation to the convention.”

Stein’s memo contained several reasons to pledge her support to Clinton, including an opinion that Clinton is stronger against presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the general election and noted that she has won key states during the primary and caucus season.
Florida DNC member Janee Murphy has endorsed Obama
“Today I am officially a Florida delegate and I think it is essential now to unite behind Senator Obama to defeat Senator McCain in the fall. I am ready now to pick up the tools that we have been given by coming together and moving forward to secure Florida for the Democrats. With Florida and Michigan a part of the equation that there is no doubt in my mind that we can come together and it is my job now to hit the ground running and help deliver Florida. As a single African American mother, I feel personally about securing a better future for my daughter, and I truly believe Senator Obama will bring the kind of change our country needs.”
Washington DNC member David McDonald has endorsed Obama
Seattle attorney and Democratic National Committee member David McDonald says he is endorsing Barack Obama for the party's presidential nomination.

McDonald had been holding off making an endorsement until after this past weekend's rules committee meeting in Washington, D.C., where he was one of 30 members deciding what to do with the disputed delegates from Michigan and Florida.

In an e-mail statement to The Associated Press, McDonald says Obama's candidacy "has brought astounding new energy and hope to the Democratic Party nationwide."

SC Representative Jim Clyburn has endorsed Obama.


The South Carolina congressman told The Associated Press on Monday that he has started to phone the state's superdelegates to ask them to get behind one candidate. When asked whether that candidate was Obama, Clyburn said yes. - AP



Note: Green Papers has moved two of John Edwards' Florida delegates over to Obama. Each gets half a vote so Obama's total goes up by one.

126 comments:

Rambling Johnny said...

2 down 44 to go!

Dr. Linda said...

MSNBC just announced that Puerto Rico awarded 5 more delegates to Obama.

Amot said...

Linda, give a link, please!

Amot said...

Those are not 5 more, MSNBC is simply late with their allocation. Split is still 38/17!

Dr. Linda said...

There wasn't a link. The female anchor for the Morning Joe show just read a paper that stated (I paraphrase) that 5 more delegates from Puerto Rico were awarded to Obama which meant that he only needs 38 to claim the nomination.

Sorry that I'm so slow in responding to your question, Amot, but the Google server has been sending me messages of erros.

Vicki said...

I'm getting the Google error page, too, fyi. busy morning? It says "server error" if that helps at all.

Election Season threads said...

It was just reported that Senator Max Baucus put an Obama sign in front of his home over the weekend

Tinsmith Snow said...

This page has been a pain in the butt to read today with all the google server errors.

craig said...

We need another 28-29 supers to endorse Sen. Obama before the polls close in MT and SD tomorrow. I think it is important that the peoples' choice award Sen. Obama the nomination. That will send a clear message to everyone, including those who wish to sow discontent in the our party!

sdf said...

What five more delegates? The final tally of 38-17 was already set, no? I assume MSNBC is just being slow and it is still at 44.

ahoff48 said...

I am writing to my Congressman, Ed Markey, again askign him to endorse Barack. This is ridiculous.

Dr. Linda said...

Here's the link for the Baucus sign:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

Thomas said...

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/05/27/obama_delaying_superdelegate_announcements.html

Looks like Obama's got about 36 in the hole to come out on the 4th or 5th...

Thomas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TheShackPack said...

Morning! Question for you expert researchers: is it TRUE that Hillary has a lead in the popular vote? I know it's not supposed to matter, but I see that she is reasoning to fight on. Is she counting caucuses and MI incorrectly, or am I just not seeing this??? OR maybe no one else is acknowledging this as it is not criteria for winning the nomination???

Dr. Linda said...

Check this link out:

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/06/clintons-popular-vote-claim-st.html

Vicki said...

I think the only one who buys HRC's math, are HRC and her supporters. I live in a caucus state, and the whole "pop vote" issue ticks me off.

the only thing that counts is delegates. which reminds me, I have to write to Cantwell again, reminding her that she made the Pelosi pledge to switch to the leader at the end of the primaries.

Joshua said...

Re: The Popular Vote

If you do not include the number of people that went to caucus and give no votes to Obama in MI then Hillary does lead the popular vote by about 200K (plus or minus). That "lead" will shrink after MT and SD of course as Obama is favoured to win both of those contests.

How do you factor in the caucus attendees and the voters in MI whose intentions were to vote for Obama though? That's a tricky scenario to try and factor!

Clemens said...

The Shackpack

from fivethirtyeight.com

"There are more ways to count the popular vote (by my count, 972) than there are to eat a Whopper. And now you can pick your favorite."
just depends on what numbers you use. Go to the website and the calculator is under popular vote scenario tester

TheShackPack said...

good to hear. because no matter how I looked at the math, it didn't work! And how ethical is it to exclude caucus states? As you all inspire me, I have already called my governor this a.m. and asked him to 'switch out' as my three year old says, and endorse Obama. I'm ready for this to be declared!!

Amot said...

Thomas,
your info is about rumor, which has been denied by Obama's campaign.

I hope we gather 10 endorsements today. And announcement about FL Edwards delegates.

Amot said...

After the LA endorsement, do you believe me now that there was something fishy in LA-2? They stole a delegate from Barack and now we all know who was behind the plot!

cloud9ine said...

now is the end of mathematic possibility. There are 232 delegates total remaining, and Clinton needs all of them to win.

reddwarf2956 said...

OK, if Clinton gets 50% of the 31 remaining that would leave 44 - 15 = 29 for Obama. If he wins by 75%, we would see about 44 - 23 = 21 We need a flood of 21 to 30 as to make the pass.

Alii said...

The popular vote, for what it's worth...not.

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/hillary-clinton.html

Amot said...

Unless we get boost of 5-6 votes from FL delegates pledged to Edwards, they have not been added so far to Obama column. That can ease the process!

Shannon said...

I have already written Cantwell, 5 times to remind her. I am doubtful she will fulfill her obligation. However, I will write her again and remind her that our caucus participation does count for something even when Senator Clinton wants to discount the State of Washington altogether.

Bear said...

Theshackpack: I looked at the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention.

According to the rule 13H she was suppose to do all that she could not to participate in that vote. By keeping her name on the ballot, she broke that rule.

After looking that rule up, I have been very disappointed that no one, no major news organization, not even the RBC people brought that up.

The rule also states that the results are considered meaningless. That the state parties were suppose to do all they could to inform people that it was meaningless. This invalidates both FL and MI votes.

However FL rules state to be on the ballot for the general election, your name had to be on the primary. This rule meant everyone had to keep their name on the ballot.

The RBC did use that vote in FL to allocate delegates. If anyone had done research like was done MI people did. Then there would have been a good arguement to follow the research and not the vote. Since the research was likely to be more accurate reflection of the voters in FL than the vote was.

The reason for the rule was to prevent exactly what Clinton is doing now. It saddens me that Clinton cheated and now claims she won the popular vote. She won the popular vote only by counting votes she got by cheating and the votes she got because FL was too lazy to do research to figure out what the voters really wanted in their state.

Alii said...

I would be neat to see about 29 SD's aboard by early tomorrow so South Dakota and Montana would put him over the top. And then, after the count, another 20++ to cover any possibility of shenanigans.

What's this about LA?

Oreo said...

Chris Whittington added for Clinton

TheShackPack said...

Bear: interesting! and discouraging that the unethical behavior continues. I knew she insisted that the votes in MI did not count, when asked why she kept her name on the ballot. I really need to educate myself more on these rules....

thanks for the info! as always.

Amot said...

After LA primary CD2 was split not according to the results, giving one extra candidate to Hillary. If you check USA Today the split in CD2 should be 4/1 Obama by HUGE margin! However LA officials gave a list with 3 Obama and 2 Clinton delegates. SoS in LA said it was party work and they had nothing to do with the split. The party said some mumbo-jumbo about provisionals but I and a team of GP made a check and it didn't change the percentage at all. If you check GP you will find out that LA is the only state with no data for the votes cast CD-by-CD. They still have no explanation about the split, nor do I. In my opinion there was a cheating conducted by the state party and now I can name the person involved. Obama campaign does not recognize the results of the primary! The stick to the real 34/22 split with 4 Obama delegates in CD2.

Eric said...

I'm pissed at Clinton and her supporters for pushing the Florida issue. I am a Florida resident and didn't vote for Obama because my vote didn't count and we don't get time off of work for primary votes. I supported Obama with donations but did not have the chance to do so with my vote. How do you reconcile us, Mrs Clinton? Do we not "count"?

Charles said...

Ug. Anyone who uses the phrase "automatic delegates" has clearly been brainwashed.

Allyn said...

Friday 5/30, Seattle PI & Seattle Times listed former speaker Tom Foley as UNDECLARED despite the 12/2007 Hillary.com letter listing him endorsing her. Is this a silent endosement, or is he actually undeclared?

Michael said...

Why don't Obama surrogates and DNC leaders point out that Clinton doesn't even have a plurality of the popular vote, let alone a majority? The majority of Democratic voters voted against her.

George said...

If the media talks about popular vote at all, they aren't mentioning the fact that Obama has 0 votes from Michigan, which makes the popular vote point moot.

If they are talking about popular vote like it matters, then they're buying into the clinton PR and promoting an extended race to sell more commercials.

No big deal, that's how it'x expected to happen

John said...

That any heretofore undeclared superdelegates would now declare for Clinton, on the verge of Obama clinching the nomination, remains mystifying to me.

I can understand that huge ass Clinton supporters would want to stick with her to the end. But if you're a huge ass Clinton supporter, why didn't you endorse her before? And if you're not, why are you endorsing her now? The whole thing seems mad to me. If they've waited this long, why piss off the inevitable winner by endorsing the certain loser this close to the end?

Alex said...

I think Whittington must have lived under a rock of some sort the past few months - his statement and explanation why he endorsed Clinton leads to no other conclusion.
I don't know him personally but talking about "responsibility" and "automatic delegates" in the same sentence while also endorsing Clinton does not speak well for him and the judgment he must have applied to come to this decision.
"There is no question" that he is part of the problem and not the solution. I hope there will be a Party Chair "up for grabs" in LA in the near future.

Jay, aka The Angry Little Man said...

I can't help but to be a bit adolescent here, but Whittington's headshot is sooo H.S. yearbook looking! >;)

Amot said...

John,
the recent endorsements to Hillary are done in purpose to promote unity. Take LA for example - Obama won the state and 6 out of 7 districts. Is there any better way to unite the party than state chair endorsing the other candidate?

Charles said...

Amot,
Huh? Each further endorsement for Hillary is another drop in the entitlement bucket.

shakrat said...

Hmm. . . now where have i seen Chris Wittington before. . .?

Oh, that's where!

Amot said...

Shakrat,
Chris Whittington is married with twin daughters, so maybe he is not virgin. And he is over 40 :)

Charles,
I was joking, of course, what this guy did today is insane. If he has a finger involved in the stolen delegate in CD2 he has to be impeached.

ctlivewire said...

I know this is hard for you Obama supporters to grasp but some of think Hillary is the best candidate.

You are talking about two candidates that are basically ties on the voting front.

Will Obama be the nominee? Probably but those of us who do not believe he is a suitable or viable candidate are not mandated to jump on your band wagon.

Those of us who have reservations about Obama do so not just because Hillary lost but because we truely do not believe in his empty rhetoric and do believe birds of a feather flock together, Wright , Pfleger , Rezko , Ayers , Khalidi. Associations that are by the way closer then a hand shake.

Are there enough of us to cost him the GE ? Well that remains to be seen but prepared for a nail biter come Novemeber :)

Amot said...

ctlivewire,
you must admit that the timing of this endorsement and the move against the voters in his state is very odd. I really can't see why he did not endorse earlier? Maybe the fact Hillary won 11% of PR voters convinced him...

Guelph said...

I just want to say to DCW and all the contributers that for a neophyte to politics and an american expat living in canada this site was invaluable. It's openness to the wide range of political opinion (and it's attempt to keep it polite and intelligent) and yet it's commitment to factual reporting of delegate count and election coverage was tremendously important to me. The US news I get from cable (CNN, FOX, MSNBC) is so bias and slanted as to make them useless to me. Even if I compare them two lies don't necessarily make a truth.

Thank you, thank you.

ps. And for God sake super's make a choice so that we can end this Tuesday night by a vote of the people. (A true vote of the people in two sanction, contested, and fair state primaries).

Thomas said...

I'm sure you've all seen this already, but at any rate: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/02/sources-most-uncommitted-senators-to-endorse-obama/

ahoff48 said...

Another half superdelegate for Obama
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080602/NEWS15/80602060

cloud9ine said...

ctlivewire,

if you will believe that Hillary ought to be president enough to cost Democrats an election and a chance to fix this nation after 8 years of gross misrule, you do not deserve to call yourself a democrat. Obama is winning fair and square, by delegates. Take out all the supers, and he still has more delegates than Hillary. If you are going to be a sore loser enough to cost us the election, and make your country suffer another 4 years of Bush, maybe that's what you deserve.

Think about how a man with zero name recognition came up, inspired millions, and is going onto the GE, with a promise of 4 years for Democrats with a senate and congress majority, to not have vetos, and to work to fix this nation. Screw it all for your candidate.. Good luck.

Philip said...

People like to call McCain "McSame," as in 4 more years of Bush. I was wondering if the real McSame to Bush is Clinton.

Not of course on many issues, but if the way she has run her campaign is any guide:

1. Gross incompetence in strategy and running her campaign deep into debt - remind you of a certain administration?

2. Complete disregard for the rules - remind you of a certain president who ignores the Constitution?

3. Using phony statistics and ignoring facts in order to back up your claim - remind you of a certain administration that ignores scientific research and facts on things like FDA, EPA, stem-cell research?

4. Using terms like "automatic delegates" even though everyone in the country calls them superdelegates - sounds like an administration that named things like the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, etc.

5. Belittling your opponent and not compromising at all, and showing a willingness to go "nuclear" even though you don't have a clear mandate for doing so

Surely this portends the way a Clinton administration would operate? How can she truly be the change we seek from Bush?

ctlivewire said...

Cloud9,

Inspiration is great. Hitler inspired millions to do his bidding and he was an excellent speaker.

I have voted democrat ever since I was old enough to vote.

You don't get a freepass on Party before country.

I view things things way:

Lets say I was applying for job to be a nanny lets just pretend a nanny for your children.

If you went to check my references and it came up that for 20 years I sat in club full of child molestors , that I had multiple associations with several pedophiles and I gave money to help support causes of known child abusers.

Would you allow me to care for your children?

This isn't about Hillary it's about the real potential danger on the horizon.

For some the word "Change" is enough to turn a blind eye to the truth. However for some of us the risk of failed policy is safer then opening our doors to unprecidented risk.

Hillary even with the lies and financial scandel even the sexual innuendo her husband brings to the table is a safer bet then those who associate with domestic & Foreign terrorists , radical hate spewing extremists and criminals.

Then he boldly says he wants to negotiate with groups who don't differ much in their rhetoric then the very people that he has been very comfortable with for the last 20 years.

I know our younger generation and I am not age wise that far from them yearn for a great big peace and hope Halo to hang over our great flag.

I applaud them for their enthusiasm and determination. As a mother of 2 inspirational words are not enough they must bring to the table substance and realistic ideas without a hint of serious inpropriety that puts my childrens future at unknown risk.

Matt said...

Folks, take the popular vote discussion, and especially any Democratic candidate bashing, to the Open Thread. Thanks.

Allyn- We've discussed Foley with the Washington paper reporters. They have Foley as Uncommitted because he never made a public endorsement. They've had Foley that way for a couple of months. For us, lack of a public endorsement does not override the Clinton press release, so we're keeping him as Clinton until we actually hear from the former Speaker himself. But, importantly, this is not a new change for the Washington papers, so don't read anything into it.

Me said...

Vote Whittington out of office!

craig said...

ctlivewire,

That is a horrible example and does not represent the facts or the truth about who Sen. Obama is and what he will do as our next president.

At this late stage of the primary, we should we working together so that we can take back the White House.

Rasmus said...

I don´t understand that Irene Stein comment that her county voted overwhelmingly for Obama in the Primary.
According to CNN there voted just one county for Obama, by a 52-46 margin, and about 800 votes.
How is this overwhelming?
Please explain.
Did she get the primary results wrong, did CNN get them wrong, or is her home county not in NY???

Me said...

rasmus, look at her picture, and you'll see the real reason why she's endorsing Clinton. Elderly white woman.

Uncle John said...

Server is giving error 502, busy.

We just have to be patient. Perhaps best to close some busy threads for a few days.

facet5256A said...

If Obama gets the nomination (and I'm quite sure he will) he will lose in November. People no longer vote party, they vote person. There are too many Clinton supporters that will NOT vote for Obama in November. There are too many "on the fence" Republicans that would have endorsed Obama, but the crazy priest shoved them back to the Republican side. I've seen it, I've talked to them and even though I don't hold that much faith in it, the polls say Obama cannot beat McCain. So while you all may bask in the glory of Obama getting the nod, know that the damage done to the democratic party will take years to overcome and we will have yet another republican in office.

Rambling Johnny said...

She need 200.5 delegates their only 229 left anybody who got any doubt should remember that number!

TheShackPack said...

is this just par for the course, totally new at this here, but it seems that if the majority of the DNC wants unity in the fall, why do the SDs continue to split? I know they each have the right to vote for either candidate, but, when one is noticeably in the lead, and this has fractioned the party, why, then, so late in the game? Is it the principle, or does HRC have a glimmer and thus the SDs keep throwing her one or two?
Thank you to you smartees, here, are you all political scientists?? Your knowledge and info base are incredible. Truly appreciated!

Oreo said...

Shack...
I'll let the other commenters give you their take on your first question.

We have no professional political background. We're just hardcore Democrats that want to end the nightmare of the last 8 years.

Rambling Johnny said...

Shack some of these politician own favors to the Clintons and they don't want to be responsible for her demise. Their also the possibility that the Clintons knows where some skeletons are still buried.

SarahLawrenceScott said...

I think it's actually helpful to Obama to have the Clinton superdelegates declare now. After all, it doesn't get him any further from his magic number.

But think about it--suppose a superdelegate was an unannounced Clinton supporter. They didn't want to announce before this, because it would go against the concept of waiting until all the votes were in. But if they wait too long, Obama will pass the magic number. Then what do they do? Endorsing Clinton at that point would be much more uncomfortable than doing it now. I think that's why you're seeing some of the Clinton supers announce now.

One reason that it's good for the Obama campaign is that, as I've mentioned on other threads, it's very difficult to thread the needle for maximum symbolic effect. Obama wants to be about 10 supers short before the primary results are announced tomorrow night. He does not want to clinch beforehand, if possible--that will just agitate Clinton supporters.

The more superdelegates that have declared--it doesn't matter for whom--the easier it is to try to assure that the number that endorse today and tomorrow is neither too many nor too few.

Fidelus21 said...

Shack: Your first question has a lot of answers. First off, there is a good shot that the Clintons have some sort of personal leverage on them. I don't mean skeletons in the closet or anything of the sort, but I'm talking about personal favors of a sort. During Bill's presidency, he was walking a tight rope with the democratic party. The legislative branch was incredibly partisan, and Bill compromised on nearly every bill that he needed to get passed because he needed every Democrat's support. I'm sure that a lot of these equated to political favors for the Clintons to redeem at a later date.

Next we can look at just Hillary. There were a good number of Democrats that strongly supported her Health Care plan from the early Clinton administration. Although it ultimately did not pass, they see this as an example of her strength in the White House. Personally, I don't like her health care plan (I don't like Obama's either), but many people do.

Thirdly, and most importantly, most SD's are not looking at the big picture of the Democratic nomination, but at either the bigger picture of the GE or the smaller picture of their own personal preferences. So it's really all about the scale that they use to make their judgement.

In answer to one of your other questions, no. I am not a political scientist. I have taken a couple of classes on the subject, but I am just an avid follower of politics, and I love math, which presupposes me to analysis of just about everything, so I try to see every side of every issue. I'm glad to see that you appreciate the help that you are getting here. It's nice to see someone so interested in these matters

ahoff48 said...

another half

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/palmbeach/floridapolitics/entries/2008/06/02/fl_superdelegate_backs_obama.html
Jeez, does that mean he needs 86 more? Anyway, as long as they keep on coming.

P.S. I am also an elderly (59 years) Jewish woman, and I am a rabid Obama fan.

yolt13 said...

Frankly, these "loyalist" supers frustrate me to no end. If you are from NY and were going to support the winner of your state's primary all along, why in the blue hell would you wait until the day before the primary season ends to so? The only logical reasons to wait until the end if your state already voted are A)you're a national party leader and don't want to be seen as attempting to "sway the vote", or B)you want to play it safe and back the winner, to promote party unity (and appear to do so for your constituents). On what planet does Irene Stein's 11th hour Clinton endorsement make even the tiniest bit of political sense... unless, of course, she was encouraged by the Clinton campaign to hold off until the end to help counter an Obama windfall?

yolt13 said...

Frankly, these "loyalist" supers frustrate me to no end. If you are from NY and were going to support the winner of your state's primary all along, why in the blue hell would you wait until the day before the primary season ends to so? The only logical reasons to wait until the end if your state already voted are A)you're a national party leader and don't want to be seen as attempting to "sway the vote", or B)you want to play it safe and back the winner, to promote party unity (and appear to do so for your constituents). On what planet does Irene Stein's 11th hour Clinton endorsement make even the tiniest bit of political sense... unless, of course, she was encouraged by the Clinton campaign to hold off until the end to help counter an Obama windfall?

Rambling Johnny said...

We have to remember that we are dealing with politician in other word peoples who are afraid to make a decision or take responsibility on anything. These peoples would look at any excuse to pass the puck to somebody else. Since they consider her out some of them who got many Clinton supporters in their state but don't really want to take her side waited for that moment to endorse her so they could say. "See I had her back but it the others who betrayed you it not my fault I swear!

jimmymac100 said...

AP reporting MI Super Lu Battaglieri has endorsed Obama.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD9123L480

Dean said...

RAPID CITY, S.D. (AP) - Looking to bring finality to the Democratic presidential campaign, Barack Obama worked furiously Monday to win over enough superdelegates to clinch the nomination with the final primaries Tuesday.
Obama wants to formally kick off his general election campaign against Republican John McCain in a victory speech Tuesday night as the final primary campaign polls close in South Dakota and Montana.

"Senator Obama is trying to line up people that are going to come out for him tomorrow during the day so that he'll have enough that puts him over the top that he can declare victory tomorrow," said Pennsylvania Rep. Jason Altmire, one of about 200 superdelegates under pressure to take a side in the contest.

"He apparently is telling people that he has the numbers, and that's what's going to happen."

Pedro de Azevedo Peres said...

Sorry. Refrasing:

Maths for dummies

Will be lunched soon targeting Clinton’s supporters who need’s to recount the votes to understand that Obama is the winner.

jimmymac100 said...

Ooops. Didn't refresh my screen so I missed you already had Battaglieri. Sorry about that.

Nathanael said...

Pity Irene Stein is, well, just plain wrong. I am quite sure she honestly thinks Clinton is the stronger candidate in the general election. She is, however, just plain wrong. And her timing sucks. If she was going to wait this long, she could have waited until after Montana and South Dakota.

Mike said...

Just an FYI, a CNN article suggests we should see a number of democratic senators announce support for Obama later this week...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/02/superdelegates/

Colfer said...

I doubt if Clinton wants any of her supporters to wait.

The Numantine said...

Irene Stein isn't endorsing for President--She's supporting the candidate who will return to Washington as a Senator from her State of NY.

craig said...

There will soon be a flood of supers going to Sen. Obama.

Sen. Clinton has called for a meeting of her campaigns advance team and invited her major fundraisers. The meeting is scheduled for this evening, in New York.

Both she and Sen. Obama will be in New York tomorrow. No word on whether they will meet or be in the same place, but this may be more than mere coincidence.

craig said...

Go here for info on Sen. Obama's visit:
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/06/02/both-obama-and-clinton-to-be-in-nyc-wednesday/

Go here for info on Sen. Clinton's visit: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91248UO1&show_article=1

Allyn said...

CNN & MSNBC are reporting that Clinton staffers are being told to get their expense sheets done, that their services will no longer be required after tomorrow night.

craig said...

Go here for info on Sen. Obama
Go
here for info on Sen. Clinton

Allyn said...

Ickes, is a former attorney for crooked unions and mobsters. I find it humorous he has is so upset about the treatment of Hillary. His history is representing liars, thieves, and crooks. Check it out on Wikipedia.
Also, I think in time, McCain, that will be described as not quite the hero as claimed. His former commanding officer stated that had he (McCain) not been the son of a much admired admiral, John wouldn't have gotten all of his awards. A short version of the GOP hero is also on Wikipedia, and I found it kind of humorous.

TheShackPack said...

thanks Oreo and Rambling Johnny! always good times... Clearly my patience cannot handle this 'drawn out' phase....

Hollywood Mark said...

According to todays ARG poll and reported on CNN there has been a 40 point swing in South Dakota with Clinton now leading by 26 points. Montana now too close to call with Obama hanging on by slim 4 point lead within the margin of error and 8 % undecided. What gives here? He was up by 28 point in South Dakota and 24 points in Montana very, very recently. Please comment if anyone knows anything. If this goes down it would be the biggest upset in terms of polling numbers in the primaries and might add to her argument to the 216 undecided Supers. Remember, the last time a Democratic Nominee did not win the popular vote was way back in 1972. Hin name was George McGovern and he was from ...South Dakota. Is this the curse of McGovern? Hope not.

sdf said...

So assuming Obama wins 9-7 (MT) and 8-7 (SD) tomorrow, the question becomes whether he can get 26 supers to announce during the day tomorrow so that he can claim a clinched victory tomorrow evening ...

Catherine said...

On ARG poll see Poblano/Nate today:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/on-which-reputations-are-made-or-lost.html

Allyn said...

MSNBC/Chris Mathews: 5 minutes ago
30+ reps to declare for Obama tomorrow (at latest Wednesday),
James Clayburn (SC), just endorsed Obama

Belinda said...

From AP
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn is
endorsing Barack Obama for president.
The South Carolina congressman told The Associated Press on
Monday that he has started to phone the state's superdelegates to
ask them to get behind one candidate. When asked whether that
candidate was Obama, Clyburn said yes.
Clyburn says he'll make a formal endorsement announcement
Tuesday.
The backing of the highest-ranking black member of Congress
comes more than four months after Obama won the Democratic primary
in South Carolina.
Obama needs just 44 delegates to get the 2,118 that are needed
to secure the presidential nomination. Hillary Rodham Clinton would
need about 200.

Amot said...

Am I the only one who is thinking that Obama is going to have 2117 delegates after polls close tomorrow and that he will accept at least one major endorsement at the party tomorrow?

Colfer said...

LA Times, Politico, Huffington Post, etc: Clinton to make bug announcement tomorrow night in NYC. Obama will also be in town.

Colfer said...

Big, non-insect-related announcement, that is.

Cubaking said...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gi1V8BAi8JGiWbVFyBgclF-CcXuQD91264QO0

Add another one boys..;-)))

RichW said...

Three points.

Electability- It doesn't matter who is the more "electable" candidate now. It only matters in November. Obama and his staff are brilliant strategists. Remember that Clinton was considered a shoe-in for the nomination before Obama got started. I think the young man will do a more than adequate job between now and November.

Closing the Deal - Obama gets criticized for not yet "closing the deal". Yet Clinon has even more trouble "closing the deal". Be assured that Obama will close the deal this week.

Clinton as an independent - Most states have a "sore loser law' Which prevents losing candidates from getting their names on the general election ballot as an independent.

Me said...

I demand more endorsements. Now.

edgeways said...

I support Obama... and I obviously have no say on the internal discussion you are having, but I think you should wait till tomorrow to add Clyburn

c. said...

Another WA super
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004453151_webdelegate02.html

Galois said...

I would suggest Clyburn should be added today. One of the sufficient conditions DCW has used in the past is campaigning on behalf of a candidate. That has been accepted as evidence of support even without a formal endorsement. So if Clyburn is already making phone calls asking people to support Obama, that should suffice.

Allyn said...

MSNBC, KING TV & KOMO Radio reports:

David Macdonald (WA) endorses Obama

Rambling Johnny said...

My Internet got down for two hours and Obama manage to get three more! lolll

edgeways said...

Big day, sheesh

Allyn said...

Does your totals reflect the two Edward's delegates from Florida? 1/2 vote each = 1. It doesn't look like it.

ahoff48 said...

Is anyone else worrying about the ARG polls. I think they are scary. It look like sometime ARG is really off the mark, but sometimes they are right. It does sound that both campaigns think Obama is going to win

Amot said...

Allyn, the total reflects the two Edwards' delegates, but Clyburn is under consideration and is not added yet.

Amot said...

Ahoff,
don't think anymore about ARG. Clinton lost yesterday when she get only 11% of PR's votes. She lost any chance to claim reasonable win of popular vote. And the fact she is not staying on ground tomorrow proves she knows it's over. After the weekend SD and MT know that they have the chance to de jure choose the nominee and they will vote double digit for Obama.

ahoff48 said...

Well, I hope your comments help me to sleep better than i did last night. I stayed up late to coax Missouri to victory for Obama, late hoping Texas would come through, and I didn't sleep well after Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, etc.

edgeways said...

opening paragraph say "So far today Obama has 4.5 superdelegate votes to Clinton's 2. Obama has a total of 6 endorsements today which equal 3.5 superdelegate votes."

The last # should be 4.5, not 3.5, right?

Amot said...

Ahoff,
tonight is your last uneasy night! Tomorrow you will go to bed knowing Obama is the nominee. Sweet dreams :)

Oreo said...

Added Rep. James Clyburn (SC) for Obama

Rambling Johnny said...

Not exactly the big flood that I was expecting but it a start tomorrow is going to be the day!

eleandil said...

Perhaps we should all be satisfied with a day long rain that can be truly absorbed than a flood that may cause havoc. Just a thought. Have a great night, love the site and all the no-nonsense folks who use it...thanks.

Chris said...

I believe this is the first one for actual election day.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/E486465EAF8BF9F38625745D0010F444?OpenDocument

Chris said...

Well, that's not showing the complete link about Maria Chappelle-Nadal, a MO superdelegate for Obama.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/
news/stories.nsf/politics/story/
E486465EAF8BF9F38625745D0010F444
?OpenDocument

Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alii said...

Does this make a total of 3 so far for Obama? Still very, very early.

http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2008/06/breaking-david-mcdonald-endorses-barack.html

Amot said...

Alii, which three names you have in mind?

Alii said...

The 3 Obama SDs so far?

Maria Chappelle-Nadal
David McDonald
Tom Foley (Has he already been accounted for?)

Alii said...

Oops, I see that David McDonald has already been accounted for.

Am I back to one?

Getting impatient.

Amot said...

Yes, unfortunately you are back to one.
Plus Foley was accounted for Clinton...
I know - we all want this over!

Kim said...

I Guess Every One is Waiting to "Confirm" the Michelle "Whitey" Comments before Endorsing ....

And Whats Up With That "American Research Group" Polling for South Dakota .... It will Break my Heart If Those Numbers are indeed True ... I wanted B.rack to go out with a Convincing Showing....

Amot said...

We have 18 more hours to secure 21 supers. If the congress group consists of 18 than somewhen around noon we shall need only 3 if they don't show even before that.

Amot said...

If the 'whitey' tape existed, Clintons would have found it and use it to destroy Barack... I guess it is just the next trick to prevent supers from endorsement and delay the end.

Alii said...

1. There will be no 'whitey' tape.

2. ARG is not the most reputable polling group.

3. Eight to ten of Edwards endorsements would help...if necessary.

Again, just trying to speed up the process.

To self, just be patient...it will be over tomorrow night. Well, NLT Wednesday noon.

Kim said...

Reassuring Words ....... Fingers Crossed Till Midnight..

Alii said...

John Spratt to join Jim Clyburn in his endorsement later today...in about four and a half hours. More with Clyburn?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hLPqTxd4Fe7e5EymHU-kTUgweRDQD91264807

Subtract one more.

Amot said...

Alii,
there are rumors Clyburn has convinced 34 Congress members to endorse today or tomorrow and that 18 will actually endorse today, probably with him. So I have a good feeling about today!

Allyn said...

I am not sure about the Tom Foley endorsement to Clinton. I am from Seattle, and on Friday, May 30th, in articles by both the Seattle PI and Seattle Times, announcing Macoll's endorsement of Clinton, they broke down the delegate situation in Washington. They had Foley listed as UNDECLARED. That's why I posed that question on this site yesterday. I realize that on 12/2007 announcement letter, Hillary.com listed Foley as endorsing Hillary. I am new to all of this. Maybe there are silent endorsers. I noticed that Maria Cantwell who has endorsed Clinton, stated that she might flip to Obama based on the final delegate count. I suspect that in the end that politicians are politicians, and no one wants to be on the losing side. Particularly, when they might be vulnerable in their next election bid.