Thursday, May 22, 2008

Superdelegate endorsements for Thursday May 22nd

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at

Hillary Clinton gets the first endorsement today. She leads 1-0.

Guam Democratic Party Chair Pilar Lujan has endorsed Clinton

“After taking a close look at the candidates in this race, I was more impressed by Senator Clinton’s ability to meet the challenges of the presidency: end the war, re-invigorate the economy, and provide universal health care,” said Lujan. “When she becomes the first woman president, she will think of the people of Guam and their aspirations.”
Lujan had previously pledged to endorse the winner of Guam's primary.


John said...

Breaking her promise, then, in order to endorse the certain loser? I really don't understand some of these people.

More Axe said...

HAHA...what a lying sack of shit.

Unknown said...

What a stupid move. Breaking her promise now and endorsing a nearly certain loser. What is she smoking over there in guam?

Unknown said...

Backing Eight Belles? The POT on that island must be tainted. Wonder what happens when your island nation see that you are just like Hillary? Not a person of integrity and your word is worth DOGDOODOO.

DocJess said...

I couldn't agree more, Axe.....

So here's the question -- assuming that all of the remaining Supers fall prey to bribes, stupidity, fear mongering, and any other idiocy that would cause them to pick that woman....and IF the nomination is stolen ---

Do y'all think that an independent Obama/Bloomberg ticket (with an initially announced Cabinet slate including the likes of Richardson, Edwards, Hagel, Gore (for energy), etc) would win in November?

Between the $$ Obama has, and what Mike can access, they can certainly get on all the ballots, there is enough time, and there are boots on the ground already.

If the nomination is stolen -- does anyone think this would work? Is there any other way to save America?

kitchin said...

These were the Guam caucus results (no primary, right?):

May 3, 2008

2,264, 50.08%
2 dels

Hillary Clinton
2,257, 49.92%
2 dels

4,521, 100%

Gray Kane, Ph.D. said...


First of all, Obama would never run as an independent. His youth shows he has a long, prosperous career in the Democratic party if he doesn't mess it up by doing things like defecting for a single election.

Second of all, if he were to run as an independent, Obama would lose a lot of his current base who see themselves more as Democrats than Obama supporters, not to mention the big-name support from people like Richardson, Edwards, and Kennedy.... He could prevent Clinton from winning, but he himself couldn't win.

This by the way is also why he likely wouldn't choose a Republican running mate.

Anonymous said...

So much for every vote counts!

Hillary supporter said...

I hate to inform you guys, but Hillary is far from being considered "the certain loser" in this race by millions of people. She is the ONLY one who is ready to lead us as our next president with a lot of experience and tons of ideas - she ain't a glorified preacher or a bush jr. I don't understand why so many people just don't see that. i'm proud of that superdelegate from Guam. I hope more do like her, and more superdelegates from obama's team switch over to clinton, as well as all the other uncommitted - it's team to get her elected and end this foolishness!

Osagebeacher said...

The most important issue now is to end this democratic primary ASAP so that we can go against McCain inNovember. The democrats have no time to lose. The superdelegates must come out for Obama in mass so that this can happen expediently. Hillary is dividing the democrats and the couontry by her claims of sexism and her false statement of winning the popular vote. AShe feels every vote mu be counted but eliminates the caucus states and does not allow Obama any votes for Michigan. Caucuses are a legal way of determining delegates. If she had thought they were unfair she should have protested this before the caucus primaries. The caucus states in question and would have gone to Obama anyways. Now he loses according to Hillary's logic because he doesn"t have the popular bvote. What a hoax! I've read Obama would have had over a million more popular votes if those states had a different type of election. How can anyone support a person who is so divisive?!

Gray Kane, Ph.D. said...


If by "every vote counts" you're referring to Clinton's slogan, bear in mind that Clinton doesn't count caucus states in her claim that she's winning the popular vote. If she wants every vote to count, she has to count them, too.

neil k. said...

She must've promised Guam statehood or something.

DocJess said...

Gray --

I know all that, and I agree with you -- I'm just getting concerned that the party of Jefferson might do something incredibly short-sighted and destructive, and I don't want McCain to win in November.

It's frustrating to watch these Supers EVEN CONSIDER overturning the will of the people -- especially when they promised to abide by it, like Pinar did in Guam.

DocJess said...

And under that "every vote count" deal -- that woman's Michigan count assumes that NOT ONE HUMAN BEING voted for Obama.

Quite a statistical improbability -- but you have to assume that for her math to 'work'

Unknown said...

DocJess - I call it 'HillaryMath'.

I find it supremely ironic that Clinton wants to disenfranchise voters from four states (IA, WA, ME and NV) while in the same breath pushing for votes to count in two states (FL and MI).

So, what, she only wants votes from 46 states to count now? Funny, I thought this was now a matter of principle on the same level as the civil rights movement. So I guess that's a lie, too, eh?

Dot said...

We dont see anything yet, where Hillary is concern. Sad day for America.

dd42 said...

Wow, that makes perfect sense. Violating the truth to support someone who is continually violating the truth.

Of course, to be fair, the Guam vote was a virtual tie - I suppose within the margin of error (vote counts are never 100% accurate).

And yet, she lied.

CO voter said...

We had a caucus in Colorado and I find it offensive that Hillary doesn't think our input should count--apparently only votes from primaries count in her book (at least that's the spin for the day). I am from the over-50 female demographic that is to be supporting her, but the longer she stays in this race, the less respect I have for her. On second thought, I'm not sure I have any respect left for her.

DR said...

a response here to hillary supporter:
you're entitled to your opinion..this is America, but what you're not getting here is that if Obama has a
majority of pledged delegates at the end of the primary season and the supers give the nomination to HRC, HRC will lose to McCAin in the general election. Many Obama supporters will not vote for HRC, not to mention how she'll invigorate the GOP masses to McCain's side. She can't win with just a tiny percentage of the black vote (you can kiss the black vote goodbye) when combined with the lack of votes/support from many livid young voters, college-educated voters, new voters, etc. She can't win with racist Appalachians and uneducated old white women alone. Oh yeah, and then there's the group of young, educated women with a bone to pick (not a big group).

Amot said...

Lujan was elected by Obama's supporters. The chair of the party lost to her because Obama fans thought she is pro-Obama. I think they sorry now they didn't reelected the ols chair. It looks to me like Hillary is buying every add-on or newly chosen super, because so far 5 supers endorsed her after 1 or 2 weeks after being elected!

DocJess said...

Mhigh --

The trick to HillaryMath is that most people in America are math idiots. That's why DCW has lists to refer to so the counts can be checked (smart) and Chuck Todd has a set of papers (dumb).

It's why most people don't know if 100 oz. Tide at $6 is a better or worse deal than 150 oz. Tide at $8.50, and which is still better if you use your coupon, and heaven forbid they double it -- that's integral calculus to some people.

So, HillaryMath assumes that people won't realize that HUMAN BEINGS DON'T COUNT to her, UNLESS they move forth her agenda.

She was the establishment candidate of 'experience' and 'vetting' when she started, and NOW she's the candidate of the Appalachian oppressed because suddenly she can make political hay of their votes.

HillaryMath works only if you leave your brain, your ethics, and your calculator at the door.

loki50 said...

This is one of those rare occasions where a rat swims toward a sinking ship. On the other hand, as the woman is completely amoral perhaps she feels compelled to vote for Hillary as a matter of professional courtesy.

She had better pray that she never needs anything from Pres. Obama

Unknown said...


You're worrying too much. We're talking about one delegate from Guam. I'm not ready to jump off the bridge just yet (or start a 3rd party) out of fear that the nomination will be stolen. There are two things that I know are true 1) Obama will the Democrats' choice for president and 2) there are some people in this world who are unbelievably stupid. Pilar Lujan is one such person.

I hope folks don't judge the whole island by one knucklehead.

Amot said...

Paul, this woman was elected by Obama's! I think the best Guam, can do is impeach her! She lied about her vote and her preference!

Unknown said...

The beginning of a wave of real Democrats who want to win.
Hillary = landslide Democratic win.
Obama = landslide for the Republicans.

Unknown said...

The comments on this page are counter-productive. Your vitriol and balkanization of primary-voting Democrats show the ugly side of politics. Every petty and personal attack will reach someone to get them to vote for McCain, third party or stay home.

Personally, I cannot vote for Clinton or Obama because they are beholden to Big Abortion - Planned Parenthood, NARAL-Prochoice, Emily's List etc. Yes, I am a registered Democrat who will cross the aisle and vote for McCain. I did vote for Clinton in the NC primary. At least she knows that when a living baby is born after a botched abortion it has earned its civil rights.


Kennyb said...

With Obama's next delegate, HRC will need to win 9 unpledged superdelegates to every 1 for Obama to prevent him from reaching 2025, if you reasonably assume a 39 BHO/47 HRC pledged delegate split in the remaining 3 pimaries. To reach it herself, she'll need more than 15 superdelegates for every one he picks up. And FL and MI will not change that very much.

p smith said...

The true culprits here are the superdelegates. This bunch of cowards has for months stood behind the excuse of waiting for the public to choose the nominee. Well, guess what, it has happened. Obama has won the pledged delegate count whatever happens in the remaining primaries and whatever happens with Florida and Michigan.

So do we see a deluge of superdelegates endorsing one candidate or another? No of course not. All they are interested in is sparing their own hides by not having to come out and endorse and risk alienating potential GOP/Ind voters in their districts.

What is this nonsense concept that certain Democrats such as Pelosi, Carter, Gore and Reid cannot endorse now? If it is truly the case that they cannot choose sides until there is a nominee then why bother giving them a vote at all.

These people are reprehensible and cowardly. I may not think a great deal of how Hillary has run her campaign but at least I respect the fact that she is prepared to come out and argue for what she wants. The fault lies with the mental pygmies at the top of the Democratic party who have neither the backbone nor the balls to make their decisions right now so that the party can unite and focus on Bush-lite McCain.

Kennyb said...


If you are offended by these comments, go read the comments on national media websites. Really, you need thicker skin if you want to read these. And while I respect your moral stance on abortion, the Democratic Party decided that they could risk losing your vote long, long ago.

Kennyb said...

p smith,

I am surprised when I read that ANY super is coming out for Obama now, because it is too late to curry favor by being this far back in the line and because they only have to wait 12 short days to (1) have a ruling on Michigan and Florida that will likely sooth each state's Democratic constituancy and (2) satisfy the symbolic benefit of not crowning a nominee until after all the votes are cast.

Gray Kane, Ph.D. said...

What I don't understand is how Obama leads Clinton in the superdelegate count for Governors, Senators, Representatives, Committee members, and add-ons, but the majority of the party's leaders still prefer Clinton. Even if Clinton seats Michigan and Florida the way she wants them (with Obama getting nothing from Michigan), Hillary would lose by 86 elected delegates. The fact that DPLs prefer Clinton just goes to show to what extent Clinton is the establishment candidate. Their allegiance to Clinton is greater than their allegiance to the voters. That's offensive.

erikwm said...

These Hillary supporters who think she'd win in a landslide if somehow Obama is stripped of the nomination are fooling themselves. Mark my words, if somehow Hillary gets the nomination, she will lose must win Democratic states like Maryland, Oregon, Wisconsin and Iowa. Plus, Illinois would be put in play.

You simply can't take it from Obama at this point. As Stephanapolus said, it would spark a "revolution." The type of people who would turn out en masse for a protest (i.e. - young people, African-Americans, activists) are firmly in Obama's camp.

It wouldn't be a landslide for Clinton. It WOULD be absolute chaos for the Democratic Party.

The supers may fear the Clinton's, but they have much more to fear from an angry activist electorate. It's just not happening for her.

p smith said...


If you truly believe that abortion should be banned in cases of rape and incest then you best go and vote for McCain. Except of course he doesn't agree with you either, he is just prepared to lie to get your vote.

There really is nothing more unpleasant than a bunch of middle aged men proclaiming as to what a woman in a terrible and difficult situation should have to do. It's a shame they don't show the same passion when it comes to tackling poverty, the obscene US healthcare system, third world debt and a hundred other big issues. Oh and of course the same people who say they want to protect life are equally keen to terminate it if a bunch of 12 prejudiced jurists says so.

Independent Voter said...

Uh oh ladies! Look out! If you seek an abortion regardless of circumstances even if you're raped you better keep your wire hangers handy, David is voting for McCain because "Obama and Clinton are beholden to big abortion". Forget your economic status, forget the war, forget gasoline prices, David's voting for McCain, so like I said you better keep those wire hangers handy.

Unknown said...

It's great to see endorsements for Senator Clinton!! Keep fighting we need you and are still fighting for you!!!!

Unknown said...

Great endorsement!!! Keep fighting Hillary, we need you!!!

Michael said...

regardless any psychoanalysis of senator clinton, she is promoting the gambit that not allowing MI and FL to be seated will amount to gore in 2000 -- the election would be 'stolen'. josh marshall is 100 percent correct on this score.

the only reason this is an issue of this magnitude is purely because of her campaign, and nothing more. it would be an historical footnote otherwise.

Travis said...

Amot said...
Lujan was elected by Obama's supporters.

She won by a margin much greater then the 7 vote margin Obama won by, so to say she was elected by Obama's supporters is just a bunch of crap.

Anonymous said...

EXCELLENT link, michael!

The way a lot of Clinton insiders have been whining to the media, it is clear that they are trying to portray themselves as victims. The line I hate is, "if it's taken 24 years for a woman to run again as president, will it be 24 more years?"
TIME OUT!!! Elizabeth Dole ran in 2000! btw, if DICK hadn't stolen her VP run, she would have been the first female VP. It's not that there hasn't been a female candidate, there just hasn't been a liberal female candidate.

I just wish people would see how divisive the Clintons are becoming. The presidency is bigger than any one person, but the Clinton's seem to the that the presidency is smaller than the 2 of them combined. Accusing their rival of sexism, claiming he is less qualified than McCain, accusing him of elitism, ad nauseum ad infinitum... With friends like the Clintons, who needs enemies?

Gray Kane, Ph.D. said...

As Jennifer's comments show, we're starting to see certain voters defect from the Democratic party for the party of Hillary Clinton.

I hope Obama chooses Kathleen Sebelius as his running mate. Time named her as one of the best governors of 2005. Sebelius shares Obama's non-divisive rhetoric. Her response to this year's State of the Union was brilliant. She'd make a great VP, and for those like Lujan who might be making gender a policy, Sebelius would assuage them as well.

DocJess said...

I don't know, Gray, are they actually "defecting" or are they just brainwashed? Alternately, and the choice I prefer, is that once they have been through the stages of anger, denial, bargaining, depression and reach acceptance that they will realize that a vote for McCain is a vote for Bush's third term.

A vote for war, torture, preemptive bombing of Iran (oh, wait, the HillaryHeads will like that since she wants to "obliterate" Iran), a continued lack of habeas corpus, civil rights, human rights, and EVERYTHING DEMOCRATS STAND AGAINST --

I have to hope they'll come around so that more of our own children don't have to continue dying in occupations of sovereign states....

Independent Voter said...

3inventors - actually Carolyn Mosley-Brown made a run at it in 2004.

And don't forget, although she didn't hold the actual title of "president" Edith Wilson is actually considered to have been the REAL first female president.

Unknown said...


You implied that I do not care about all the life issues. I have worked for decades against the death penalty, protesting outside our state prison and doing what I can to convince my Democratic governor to commute sentences and my Democratic legislature to enact an official moratorium or abolition of our death penalty. I did the same in California when I lived there. I have worked with the Darfur divestment campaign that got our state investments out. I opposed military operations in Iraq. I support debt forgiveness, support comprehensive immigration reform & the DREAM Act; I support expanding SCHIP, WIC and many other programs to help people help themselves. I have dedicated my life to both education and basic medical research. It's no corporate setting, but it is rewarding in other ways.

When women tell me that they regret their abortions (for a variety of reasons), I know we have failed them - including the part of our obscene US health care system where they got their abortion. I am proud to work with Feminists for Life, Democrats for Life, Special Olympics and my local pregnancy assistance centers to help women and families who want to be able to choose to have their babies. I care about the mothers and babies after they are born. I am not a Republican.


Unknown said...

Hillary Supporter says:
Wait until all the links to corruption comes out against OBAMA!
Is he going to say, "LEAVE ME ALONE" like he told everyone to leave his wife alone.
Obama cheated his way to his current delegate lead through the caucuses among other things that the Democrats will find out about this fall when it's too late to change their course.
And you are all complaining about one delegate supporting Hillary????
Obama is a liar too......wait and see is all I can say.

Viviane said...


nanc said...

I'm a rabid Obama supporter and campaign worker, but I really can't muster any indignation about this endorsement. Guam was a virtual tie. We aren't complaining about the 2 Clinton PLEDGED delegates who have now endorsed Obama.

I do have to say that Hillary being in the race now is helping Obama. It would have hurt big time to lose WV, KY and PR if she wasn't even a candidate. And her ridiculous speech yesterday, phony "caring" about the votes now that she needs them, and not caring about disenfranchising voters in Michigan and the caucus states is simply making it very easy for Obama to reject the idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket.

DocJess said...

Hey David --

You're not allowed to be a middle-aged guy who INSISTS that HIS views, and HIS VIEWS ONLY hold sway over what EVERY WOMAN should do...***AND***... be a Democrat.

Totalitarianism and the Democratic Party are mutually exclusive.

Gen said...

How is Obama and what do you expect from him?
What exactly he is promising to happened after 4-5 years, after 8 -9 years? Specifics!!!
Is he bigger than President Clinton? No? Why you are trashing him? What about a little of respect?
Kennedys, are they entitled of political offices? Yes? Why not Clintons?

Hillary "polarising" personality? How come that "Mister Uniter" does not like a simple people. Is he is out to bay the attention of American new snobs. Hillary is just different politician a doer, that we need badly write now, emergency!

THuff said...

The folks who are calling Sen Clinton a doer have to answer some questions:

She is a US Senator, right?

She can introduce legislation to accomplish her proposals at anytime, right?

Ask New Yorkers how much of a doer she is. She won a second term telling them she wasn't even considering running for president. How many of her constituents does she meet with daily, weekly or monthly since she was sworn in for her second term?

If she is elected president, she will probably start right away running for UN Secretary General and we won't see her around most of the time.

Basketball mom, M.D. said...

I cannot believe this. so even the superdelegates will not concede that this race is over? are we all holding out for Hillary to strong arm the right person, and suddenly a windfall of supers step to her side and low and behold, she wins this, with racism and sexism rampant?? B.S. is all this amounts to. Shame on GU's super! the Clinton's have said horrible things, behaved unethically and continue to do so, they played the race card AND the gender card! Thus, GU's super is bordering on stupid.

Bull Schmitt said...

Hey now people.. let's not be so hard on Chairwoman Lujan here - just because the Young Democrats wouldn't take a million dollars for their two Superdelegate votes...

Doesn't she also have one open SD spot to appoint still?

Basketball mom, M.D. said...

Sally! At least give us the impression that you're well-informed! Clearly you are not! And Caucuses DO count! And let's talk corruption, shall we? Hillary's impeached felon of a husband and her 'marriage of convenience for political purposes', strong arming and threatening the supers, corruption case after case, are you nuts? Obama actually lives an ethical life! Hillary NEVER has! Her words say as much! Education speaks leagues, Sally....

Basketball mom, M.D. said...

David, I'm sure you've surveyed every woman who's had an abortion to base your opinion on? Including women in violent domestic situations, women impoverished and intelligent enough to know they can't feed another mouth, women on aid, single mothers, etc. I can assure you that any 'medical research' involved here would not be tainted with entitled opinions and threats to women's civil rights. the women I know and have treated as patients who have had to choose whether or not to have an abortion cannot be summed up with a blanket statement. How are yours?

Anonymous said...

Independent voter, thanks for the info about Carolyn Mosley-Brown (Braun). I was living outside the US during the whole 2004 process and never knew how the Democrats possibly lost. She's an interesting choice but also from Illinois. Lack of regional diversity didn't help Gore/Traitormann (now that he's with the GOP) and didn't hurt Bush, but could help Obama, if only she were from Florida or Pennsylvania, or Texas or Michigan, or any of the other states that McAuliffe, Ickes, Ferraro, Bubba, HRC and party say that Obama can't win ;)

Bull Schmitt said...

Odder still, I can't find a single mention of this in the Pacific Daily News (Guam's main, if not only newspaper).. almost like the Chairwoman called Hillary at 3am (local) to make her announcement - why do you suppose that might be??

jimf said...

For all you people saying Hillary is not counting all 50 states when she claims she is leading now, she is leading the popular votes with ALL caucuses counted, including estimates for the 4 states that do not report popular vote totals. Go check RealClearPolitics's popular vote count please.

Also, I hardly think winning Guam by 7 votes constitutes a win. It's a tie.

Thank you, Pilar Lujan, for having the good judgment to go with the better candidate who will do more good for this country. This race is not over, and the hysterical reaction of the Obama supporters to this Clinton endorsement (if it was over, why would it matter?) is proof.

Bull Schmitt said...

jf: If you're referring to me, my reaction is only hysterical in the sense that I'm laughing about it ;)

The math is still the math, and Sen. Obama has all the votes he needs without Chairwoman Lujan, and whomever she may appoint for the vacancy there.

In fact, I don't wonder if she's announced for Clinton because everyone she's asked wants to be an Obama delegate.. this would make the Guamanian Supers 3-2, Obama - and would be most reflective of his narrow victory there.

Cheers to all you out there fighting for democracy in Zimbabwe today - Si Se Puede!

(Can't wait for that footage of Hillary chugging a fifth of rum in San Juan - hee)

Unknown said...

Anybody else wonder where all the superdelegate endorsements are? It's been way too quiet today. Usually there's a half dozen announcements. And I would have expected more Obama's Oregon victory. Anybody else wonder what's going on?

Unknown said...


I wonder if maybe Obama has a large group coming out tomorrow or Monday that is large enough to knock some sense into Hillary, and stop all this nonsense regarding sexism and a one sided count on MI/FL.

nanc said...

jf, I did just check RealClearPolitics numbers. The only way she has a popular vote lead is if you count Michigan & Florida votes with Obama getting zero votes from Michigan. All other scenarios have Obama in the lead.

jimf said...

Yes nanc, that's right. My point was that the count where she is ahead includes ALL the caucus states, contrary to the claims of others here about not including caucus states.

For Michigan, I think it's quite likely that after Puerto Rico, she will have a lead giving Obama the uncommitted votes. And I agree that Obama should have most of those uncommitted votes count for him (although Edwards was still in the race).

Anonymous said...

The comments on this site generally have been informative and helpful, providing a good deal of new information and avoiding the silly vitriol that characterizes many open comments sections. This thread appears to be an unfortunate exception.

One superdelegate has endorsed Senator Clinton. I don't think the world has stopped turning. Superdelegates are free to endorse anyone they wish, and to date most have chosen to endorse Senator Obama. I believe three of the last five add-on endorsements Senator Clinton received were part of a 3-2 split in California that was a fair reflection of the popular vote in their primary. I don't know what inducements are being offered to superdelegates to endorse one candidate or another, but since I believe most Democratic activists would prefer either Clinton or Obama to McCain, I think the mean-spirited rhetoric about unfair practices should be kept to a minimum. If we can't maintain our cool during a hotly contested primary between two qualified candidates, how can we convince the American people we can manage real conflicts like those bedeviling the Middle East?

extreme236 said...

I find it funny how Obama supporters whine about ONE superdelegate endorsing Clinton despite the fact they are free to do whatever they want. It looks like Obama will be the nominee anyway so stop crying over it.

Unknown said...

smart women from guam , you obama supporters are you see something that now all callenges for obama are over and superdelegates are still not endorsing him , why, becausse toose are clinton supporters and they will endorse her , dont be stupid , Hillary will be nominee, i talked with 4 of thoose supers and tey sad it is that

extreme236 said...

Backing Eight Belles? The POT on that island must be tainted. Wonder what happens when your island nation see that you are just like Hillary? Not a person of integrity and your word is worth DOGDOODOO.

HAHA...what a lying sack of shit.

Why do Obama supporters get angry over one superdelegate? Isn't Obama's message about moving past partisan differences to work together?

lanny said...

I think after june 3rd most
super delagates will come to
there senses and support HILLARY. Florida and michigan will count. HILLARY is still in this race and she will win the nomination. I applaud this super delegate for doing the right thing and supporting HILLARY.

Aris Katsaris said...

extreme236 - it's not that the superdelegate supported Clinton, it's that she probably got votes and thus got her position by lying about who she'd be supporting.

Agreed however, that there's little no point in complaining about this. Obama has won.

Blame said...

“When she becomes the first woman president, she will think of the people of Guam and their aspirations.”

It’s just sad. She really believes that it’s just a matter of when. For that matter she believes that Hillary will remember.

What a paradise Guam must be for the natives to be that trusting.

extreme236 said...

Well she did say she would back whoever won the state, however she did run as an uncommitted person, now the vice-chair was running as pro-Obama. Although I'm sure the people of Guam won't make a big deal over it because he only won by 7 votes there. If he had won 75-25 then I think it would be worse for her. But yes, no point in arguing/complaining about it.

Mitch said...

I'm tired of folks talking about Hillary's vast amount of experience. The fact of the matter is she spent a good amount of her husband's eight years in office ducking innuendo about Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, etc. She was hardly a stateman or a policy-setter. Don't get me wrong, I was a big supporter of Bill and an ardent Democrat. But he was the elected official, not her. If my wife were a surgeon, would you want me to operate on you? Of course not. Well, he was the president, not her. Feminists who support Hillary should go find a candidate who's made it on her own mertis, and not on the merits of her husband. The sad fact is that Hillary would not have become Senator from NY if not for her husband; she wouldn't have the ardent support of folks like Ed Rendell and others who have campaigned hard for her if they didn't owe favors to her husband. Her credentials are a bit fraudalent, and not really better than Obama's, who she dismisses as a neophyte.

DR said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Gray Kane, Ph.D. said...


Double check your sources. shows Obama leading Clinton 48.3% to 47.8%-- and that's with Florida.

Unknown said...

I voiced my comment about Pilar Lujan at 12:04pm. If you want to know what I think about that issue just scroll up.

Now I want to suggest the REAL issue that Clinton supporters should be complaining about as they cry about the fact that their candidate lost the nomination.

The trouble is this: over a period of just fifteen days (Feb 5- Feb 19) 66% (2135 of 3253) of the pledged delegates were selected. Those fifteen days were very good news days for Barack Obama. There were no scandals, no controversies, the MSM was in love with him and Clinton hadn't come up with a strategy to combat his appeal. It was during these fifteen days that Obama built up such an insurmountable lead that the following NINETY days of good Clinton news (when Hillary won nice victories in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana and rolled up eye-popping landslides in Rhode Island, West Virginia and Kentucky) and bad Obama news wasn't enough to erase Obama's huge lead.

I knew, on Feb 20, that my candidate was going to be nominated. I knew it -- not because I assumed he was going to do well in the weeks and months ahead -- but because I realized that NO MATTER HOW WELL CLINTON DID she was never going to catch him.

The biggest flaw in the Democrats' nominating process is the fact that they don't "spread the wealth". If things were fair, sensible, and democratic they would do this: 1)Hold primaries or caucuses in IA, NH, NV and SC in each of the four weeks in the month of February and 2)then hold four contests -- no more, no less -- each week in March, April and May. By Memorial Day it would all be over and no candidate could win unless s/he made a convincing case to the electorate in a consistent manner for the WHOLE PERIOD OF THE NOMINATING PROCESS

If Clinton supporters really wanted to fix what's wrong with the system and fix what cost her the nomination they would join Obama in supporting the DNC's ruling that Florida and Michigan's delegates not be seated. Why? Because the only way the Democrats can get the kind of fair, reasonable and democratic system that I suggested above is if the states submit to an orderly arrangement managed by the national party. As long as a huge percentage of the states are elbowing each other to the front of the line we will have what we had this year -- CHAOS! We will have chaos and we will allow a candidate win even if he has only a fortnight worth of favorable press.

Unknown said...

All of you Obamamaniacs do understand that he will NOT be the nominee, right?

Proclaiming Hillary's candidacy dead does not make it so.

She will win the nomination and the presidency.

Look at the polls. Look at the polls.
Obama cannot win the GE, Hillary wallops McCain.... who do you think the supers really want?

Unknown said...

Wtf is wrong with Guam?

Welcome to the losing team, Isuppose.

Anonymous said...

I think whaa "Mitch said" to be pretty accurate, and a heck of lot more diplomatic than I would have said. If you want a woman on Obama's VP list, how about the Kansas governor, Sebelius(sic), no baggage, and did it all herself. Hillary is a fraud.

tmess2 said...

My understanding is that the vacancy to the DNC in Guam was filled by the outgoing chair and there are no vacancies in Guam.

However, there are other vacancies. There is one DNC position vacant in Illinois and two vacant at-large DNC positions.

In addition, the chair and vice-chair positions are vacant in Hawaii (the chair and vice-chair are automatic members of the DNC).

Finally, some of the convention states elect their chair and vice chair at the state convention. I know of two states that do this (Texas and Alaska). While, in Alaska, the new chair and vice-chair do not take office until November, the new chair and vice-chair take office immediately in Texas (and thus replace the current chair and vice-chair as unpledged delegates).

I do not know if the other convention states have similar rules. If so, that could change the counts as to committed unpledged delegates for one or both candidates. (The current chair in Texas is on the uncommitted list, but the vice-chair is on the Obama list).

Matt said...

Tmess - You got a source for the Texas information? That would be new news.

Also, for everybody else, if you hear of DNC members being elected at state conventions, they do not take office until after the convention - by DNC rules. This does not apply, however to chair and vice/chair positions, as we've seen in Guam, Hawaii, and now maybe Texas.

joanieroanie said...

Love your site...have thought today was quiet for BHO b/c it's a Holiday weekend too-SD's need rest and family time

MoveOnAlready said...

Please Democrats, let's stick together. Either BO or HC would be a vast improvement over the past 7-year Republican mis-management of our national affairs.

And remember, the super-delegates are NOT obligated to follow the crowds, neither voters nor pledged delegates (nor their own previous leanings) fact, the creation of the super-delegates was specifically aimed at giving the DNC a chance to overturn popular opinion, if they deemed it to be in the best interest of the party. Why else have 'em? In my opinion, they should have ALL waited until the voting was done to endorse.

Anyway, Obama isn't far enough out of the mainstream to be considered an unworthy representative for the Democrats, so i see no reason for the supers to overturn, but it IS their call.

At this point, Obama will surely get the needed delegates to lock in the nomination, and will hopefully gain the backing of enough HC supporters in the GE to win the White House. If, by chance, Hillary finagles the nomination, i'll vote for her (begudgingly)...but i can't see that happening.

Beyond that, it would gravely concern me if either BO or HC ran as an independent (seems like McCain would win); but who knows, something wonderful could come out of it (maybe America evolves into a 3-party system). Best thing is that Cheney and Bush will be put out to pasture.


tmess2 said...

Matt, my source for Texas is the rules posted on the Texas Democratic Party site. I also confirmed it with the people who run the Burnt Orange blog.

The relevant rules in Texas are found in Article III Subsection D. As best I can read them, the terms of members of the SDEC (which would presumably include the terms of the chair) begins at the adjournment of the state convention.

Basketball mom, M.D. said...

Botched abortions do not occur at legal clinics, David. The educated response to the horrid things you are saying is that number one, abortions are not done on fetuses that are viable. Abortions are done legally and as a woman, you bet I want my civil rights protected. Clearly you know nothing about medical abortions. And you shame and embarrass women who have found themselves having to make this choice. Have you ever been confronted with this choice??? No.

Tom said...

What you are all missing here is that Obama is a gentleman. Not something many people are used to dealing with nowadays but...

He is simply trying to allow HRC a graceful way to bow out. Aside from being polite (something else most people have forgotten about nowadays) but this way less of her supporters are alienated if and when she actually concedes. I am sure he has the SDs he needs in the bag but he is waiting to give her a chance to go peacefully as opposed to forcing her out.

Alternatively, he may simply be waiting until MI and FL are resolved on the 31st so he knows exactly what is needed.

Obama's campaign has been, in the main, masterfully run. I won't fret about no supers on a few days, I won't fret about a single SD going Clinton's way. As mentioned the percentages she would need of the remaining SDs are nearly ludicrous.


Unknown said...

theshackpack, docjess, david, independent voter, psmith, kennyb,

Is there any way I can convince you that a discussion of abortion on this thread is off-topic to the point of being bizarre? I'm sure you could 'take it outside' and find another place on the 'net to conduct your debate.

I have to believe that people come to this 'site in order to get into discussions about the Democratic nominating process. Discussions about abortion stir up everybody's passions and distract people from everything else. It's a cancer on the conversation.

Matt said...

We agree. Please take this discussion to the Open Thread, link in the left sidebar. thanks. - The Mgmt

Unknown said...

I think the best scenario for Obama right now is if he lines up enough SD to be 10-15 short on June 2, under whatever rules for FL and MI have been adopted at that point. That way, South Dakota and Montana can put him over the top. Clinching with the votes of the last two states will cause less rancor than winning by an avalanche of SD's on the next day.

Up until now, the Obama campaign has been very skillful at deploying their SDs, and I wouldn't be surprised if they try to maneuver them so that this comes to pass. The media would have a field day with it "coming down" to the last two states, even if it was really just some clever manipulation of SDs who were ready to endorse when the campaign asked.

Mike said...

I think BO has the number to reach 2026 by June 3rd. Here is a quick,
back of the envelop calculation:


20 to 24 out of the remaining add-ons;

Puerto Rico will be better than 40/60 BO/HC, roughly 22/33 split; SD and MT will yield at least 18 delegates; Pelosi's club ~ delegates- nancy, her daughter, carter, clyburn, rahn emmanuel, Gore?...

20+22+18+6= 66 additional delegates. He needs just 61. Pledge by superD will hasten the process and provide buffer for MI/FL resolution. The Democratic party will not overturn the pledge delegate majority. HC knows the fact; she's trying to recoupe as much of her campaign debt as possible, before August convention.

tmess2 said...

With some minor changes, I agree with your calculations Mike, but that gets him to 2026 by June 21st not by June 3rd.

Several of the add-ons that you are counting are chosen between June 4th and June 21st.

I use slightly more cautious numbers. I think that the worst case scenario for Obama is 30 delegates from the remaining primaries. I think he will pick up at least 2 more delegates at the Iowa state conventions. I think he will pick-up 20 more add-ons. I think he picks up at-least 3 of the current vacancies. I think he picks up the new Congresswoman from Maryland.

That puts him 5 short before you count Pelosi Club unpledged delegates and other people out there that are almost certain to endorse him on or shortly after June 4th (e.g. Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Tom Harkin, Donna Brazille, etc.).

distantobserver said...

I am an ardent Obama supporter and I find Hillary disgustingly dishonest, plus have genuine trouble calling her even remotely a Democrat. True, I never liked her(although I am almost her demographic - "almost" meaning post-grad education, otherwise I am over 50, white and a woman, and liberal, of course). I am horrified at the thought that the country would have as President someone who has been endorsed by Richard Scaiffe Mellon, someone who has started to get on fairly well with Fox news. Someone who plays the gender card to its fullest while owing so many votes to REVERSE sexism. I could go on and on and on.
But I am here for a different purpose - the fact if that I actually foresaw a reverse of the tide in the movement of superdelegates after Kentucky. (I thing Edwards helped a great deal after WV but there is only one Edwards ....) These people are politicians and they are with the winner, no matter who helped them get elected, no matter what they promised. And right now, after WV and particularly Ky where the racism and reverse sexism was openly acknowledged by 20% in exit polls (which means the factors were there in at least in 40%) and the narrative is that these white racist voters are THE factor that puts the Democrat over the top in November, Hillary is being seen as the likely winner. The politicians do not care if they win by the votes of small green creatures from Mars, winning is the only thing. It is as simple as that. I HOPED I would prove wrong and checked this site every other hour after Ky, but it seems that I was not. I HOPE Obama will choose his VP very wisely (and not Hillary for VP, God forbid!), I HOPE that he will be able to do something to make these voters feel he is "one of them", I I do think that Jonathan Alter will be heard by his team and that he will counter Hillary's poisonous "more popular vote" narrative - a mendacious narrative - fast and in strong terms. I also hope that he will find a way of proving to the superdelegates that he can fix his "Appalachian problem". But this needs to be done by him and his team, not us ranting here, preaching to the choir. I do have faith in his team (and a small hope that some of his assistants may read this, too). I would not be posting this if I had not foreseen the development discussed here and proved right. And I keep checking every hour to see signs that perhaps, just perhaps I am still wrong ...

Ariane said...


Don't panic because you did not see an avalanche of support after KY and OR. I certainly did not expect it and neither did a lot of experienced political observers more knowledgeable than I am. Think about this: which side has more reason to want to slow down their own SD endorsements?

People who have been talking to superdelegates including some of the SDs themselves have said there is a large group of them that decided weeks ago that they would wait until after 3 June and they are sticking to that.

Several of them have also made comments that the majority of the remaining SDs are for Obama and/or the leader in pledged delegates. There are several reasons these folks are waiting.

Obama supporters
(many or most likely coordinating their announcements with the Obama campaign):
*They want to show respect to Hillary and let the contests play out.
* They don't want to anger her supporters by appearing that a mass of SDs pushed her out before the remaining votes were cast.
*The Obama campaign don't want it to be the SDs who put Obama over the top.
Plan to endorse leader in PDs
*A lot of SDs (beyond those who have publically stated so) plan to endorse the leader in PDs, but since it is not yet (until May 31 when the RBC decides about FL and MI) known what the total number of PDs will be, they want to wait until that is known. And at that point they may as well wait a few more days.
Clinton supporters
I'm sure some of the remaining SDs prefer Clinton. I just don't see as many reasons for them to hold back as I do for Obama supporters. Some of them who would like to endorse her may be waiting to after May 31 to find out just how far behind in PDs she is likely to be.

The few still undecided. There are a few who are just terribly bad at making up their mind. As political people they know that current polling does not predict what may happen in November. Both candidates have some serious baggage. Both have problems with some demographic groups. They're not sure which candidate has the best chance against McCain, or which might most help or harm their own re-election or the party's chances in their state. Or they prefer one candidate but their district voted for the other and they are still torn and want the decision taken out of their hands. (See next point.)

The chicken-$hits
They overlap with the precedign group. They don't want to get in bad with either possible president so they don't want to endorse until it is inevitable. They think it likely Obama will be the nominee but they know that it is a mistake to underestimate the clintons and they wonder if she still may manage to pull it out, and they are afraid of retribution by the powerful Clintons.
They may be shaking in their boots between the Clinton machine and the Chicago machine (such as it is today)

THuff said...

The X factor in your calculations is that Harold Ickes is now claiming that none of the delegates from Michigan should be seated as supporters of BO. I am worried that the HC camp might be deliberately pressing for an unobtainable deal so they can tie up the fight over FL/MI in litigation that stalls the process until the convention.

Unknown said...

Quit pretending.

You are a Republican. Hillary has long been a supporter of a woman's right to chose so why did you vote for her in the primary?

You are a hypocrite. How could you be concerned about life while switching to McCain who is a war monger? How many more deaths can a moron like you sanction in Iraq? Aren't over a million enough?

Get lost.

distantobserver said...

Today's two endorsements hopefully prove that you are right and I am wrong. Note, though, that Dennis Cardoza switched his endorsement from Clinton to Obama for the explicit reason that
“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 fin d 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". The "Zimbabwe speech" went so far in destroying the legitimacy of the Democratic party that many commentators (including Eugene Roberts, Arianna Huffington) who have been gracious before now say that the party, and in particular the superdelegates, should act immediately. Because it is now clear that there is no appeasing of that woman (and the use of "appease" is intentional here). Anything short of presidency would mean that she has been sold out and she would be telling her supporters so, make no mistake about it. She is not interested in a gracious end, so sparing her dignity is a futile exercise. At the moment she quite clearly is not interested in what happens to the Democratic party, either. So Obama supporters have absolutely every reason to come forward as fast as possible.

Mike said...

Hot of the press...

Hillary just claimed that the possibility of Obama's assasination keeps her in the race. Is she praying for it? Or urging one of the "hardworking white american" to do her a favor, after her rejection by the democratic voters?

This is shameful and truly obnoxious. Superdelegates, please follow Cardoza's lead and end this ridicule

Basketball mom, M.D. said...

what ARE the supers doing today? what is left to contemplate?

GMa from Texas said...

Thank you Ms. Pilar for endorsing Sen. Clinton. We both know that she has worked tirelessly for people all her life and will continue to do so. She will be the best president for all people. I'm sorry you've taken so much abuse for standing tall with a woman we both admire.