Bloomberg News notes that superdelegates (ahem, Harold -- automatic delegates) are moving Obama's way by an average of five to one since Feb. 5.
Add one to the tally today: Melissa Schroeder of Wisconsin.
« Searching For Rev. Wright. | Main | If They'd Only Listened To Ruffini... » Supers Bowled For Obama14 Mar 2008 12:08 pm Comments (23)
"Isn't there anyone in charge of the Democratic Party who can say enough is enough and tell Hillary to fold her tent gracefully? Posted by Ajaz" You concern is noted. However there are 8 states and 2 Territories left that have yet to vote. How about if they get their chance? 
Given recent events, I doubt that the superdelegates will continue to go Obama's way to the same extent going forward. Obama's problems with the reverend are not going to disappear by mereley saying he disagrees with some of what his spritual (and sometimes political) advisor says. Does he actually bring his two young daughters to hear that crap? Why did he continue to attend these sermons after the reverend, in effect, blamed America for 9/11? "God damn America" and "Hillary has never been called a ni$$er" are not going to play well with superdelegates, let alone middle America. Why would he donate $25,000 to a church that teaches this stuff? He also has an earmark/lobbyist issue. How can he say he will not be influenced by lobbyists when his wife's school lobbied him for earmarks and then they got one?
At this point Hillary's quest is a joke. All she can offer the American people is an attempt to tear down the most inspiring politician of our generation. She's trying to bully her way to the nomination through backdoor intimidation and upfront smearing of her political opponent. She can only pull the Democratic party and the nation down. I agree that the superdelegates and party elders need to step in and end this fiasco that Hillary is creating. There is no need to indulge the blind ambition of Hillary Clinton any longer. Do not let Hillary steal our hope.
sbj-u r absolutely right. This wright thing spells disaster for the Obama campaign and not getting ahead of this story as forcefully has and will hurt him going further. I thinkit is Obama who might be called on to fold his tent gracefully. HRC wins, even though by default. I won't vote for her because I am a woman and I despise anyone who perpetually plays the victim be my choice. I will sit this one out. But, supers may move to HRC now that the Obama people have pretty much not rejected and denounced Wright. He has failed. It really makes me sad to write this, because I adored him.
hadenough, Those states will get to vote whether or not Clinton continues to campaign as McCain's surrogate. When a presumptive nominee is decided on, the remaining primaries actually do occur as normal.
If anyone thinks this reverend story will still be news this time next week, you're kidding yourself. Obama is doing the right thing by not taking the bait.
sbj and ap - your concern trolling is noted. Keep grasping at straws.
Tiparillo, I think there's about an 80% chance that they're the same person.
"hadenough, Those states will get to vote whether or not Clinton continues to campaign as McCain's surrogate. When a presumptive nominee is decided on, the remaining primaries actually do occur as normal. Posted by Klaus" "presumptive nominee" What are you afraid of? Whether obama drops out now or after he is beaten to within an inch of his poltical life with rev wright the primaries/caucuses will go on. So he might at as well hang in there.
Obama really needs to step it up from his lackluster performance in the past few weeks. Trying to play Clinton at her own game is just making him look hypocritical and less capable of leading. His entire point all along has been that he and we no longer need to play that game. If he voted a certain way in the past, and it turned out he was wrong, he should admit it and say he's learned from it. If there's a reasonable rationale for past actions that isn't readily apparent, then he should patiently explain it. But he needs to stop trying to formulate the stupid one-line responses that Hillary's spin machine demands from him. They make him look as dumb as she looks when she spouts her snide, hypocritical one-liners. Stay reasonable and positive, Barack, or you are no good to us anymore. I didn't pay $2300 to send you to Hillary Clinton's political finishing school.
This won't be news next week? Do you honestly think that 527s won't make this a big issue? You can't just wish this stuff away; the news loves to put America-hating rhetoric on the air. Dean Barnett at Weekly Standard puts it well (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp): "You combine Reverend Wright's rhetoric with Michelle Obama's and a pattern begins to emerge: Obama's inner circle seems composed of an inordinate amount of people who don’t much care for this country. Some Obama supporters may ask in response to that fact, So what? Does Obama necessarily share the views of his pastor and his wife? And what if he does? If that's going to be Obama's supporters best defense, it's not a very good one. The views of Obama’s close relations are going to disquiet a lot of people. A lot of voting people."
Obama is doing the right thing by not taking the bait. Of course Obama is not going to "take the bait." The question is whether or not the media will. I thought as of yesterday morning most of them probably wouldn't. Only ABC and Fox seemed to be running with it among electronic media outlets. But I noticed this morning it was being discussed on MSNBC. If it's one thing cable networks hate more than being mean to Barack Obama, it's allowing the competition to monopolize a story. My guess is CNN follows, and maybe CBS and NBC. As well as other print vehicles. The story is not spreading like wildfire. But it is spreading. The American people have a right to a fuller vetting of a potential president. Plus, something's bound to break with respect to the Rezko story. There's still a long, long time until Pennsylvannia, and superdelegates can change their votes if they wish.
And let me be clear that I don't mean Obama should denounce his pastor and sell out the whole faith community in the neighborhoods he has worked so hard for. What he should do is say that these people are having a discussion and they are entitled to their opinions, even when their opinions aren't the same as Obama's political platform. South Side Chicagoans don't live in a perfect world, and they're just doing the best they can. Obama goes to chruch with them, but they wouldn't run the White House if Obama were elected any more than George Bush's pastor runs it now.
This Obama's pastor story has been pushed by Fox for a while. The rest of the media has been too smart and too ethical to pick it up, until now. Why? Because the Hillary camp is desperate, and they are pushing it. Let's hold Hillary accountable for all of her lies. Let's hold her accountable for not releasing her tax returns, or her list of earmarks. That matters. This does not. There are plenty of white pastors who have said some crazy stuff, and who had or have connnections to white politicians. Maybe a black candidate with a black church is held to a higher standard. We all know that Obama represents a quantum leap forward in our politics and leadership and inspiration. This is just the old system trying to retain it's power and destroy our hope. We don't have to allow that. We can overcome.
Oh, fer cryin out loud, sbj, do you want all your politicians to keep doing the McCain-Bush-style "I love my country more than you do" song and dance? What a fucking sick joke this is. If you really believe that only people who are uncritical of their country's failings shuold run for office, you absolutely foreclose the possibility of electing anyone who might address and fix problem. Come to think of it, this explanation is consistent with what we've seen from our elected officials in recent years. Would you deny that race relations are totally fucked up in America? Do you think it's alright that huge numbers of Americans live in poverty and have access to total shit for education? Is it cool that our current elected officials were so mind-blowingly clueless about military history and foreign policy that they signed us up for a multi-trillion-dollar defensive military occupation of an ungovernable fake country in the Middle East? Is it not mortifyingly embarassing that Fidel Castro's regime suckered our country into a 45-plus-year economic and political cold war THAT HE WON, at the expense of billions of U.S. treasury money and the impoverished misery of the Cuban people? Should we be proud that idiots like Charlie Wilson basically CREATED al Quaeda? Anyone who isn't honest and morally courageous enough to acknowledge that America has big problems is either dangerously ignorant or outrageously dishonest, and in any case totally unfit for public office. Or would you rather have politicians who play pretend?
superdelegates can change their votes if they wish. Go bake some brownies or something. You're simply an ignoramus.
Obama knew this was coming and didn't get out in front of it. It's not fatal as some on this board believe, but it can be very damaging if handled incorrectly. Most Americans still haven't heard of Wright, but they will. Obama needs to take the opportunity to put both Wright and his relationship with him into context before it becomes the ultimate troll fodder. Obama is still something of a blank slate to most Americans. He needs to define himself or he'll be defined in a negative way. He should do what he does best and give a speech on his faith. Not only might it defuse the whole Wright mess, but could put the Muslim smears to bed once and for all.
Cry me a river, tk. Is it that hard to understand that many Americans want a President who is proud of the good their country has accomplished? Actions speak louder than words - let's see some real distancing here. "If you really believe that only people who are uncritical of their country's failings shuold run for office" Umm, didn't write this ... 15 yards. "Would you deny that race relations are totally fucked up in America?" No, and your point is ... ? "Do you think it's alright that huge numbers of Americans live in poverty and have access to total shit for education?" No, and your point is ... ? "Is it cool ... Iraq ... blah blah blah" Super-cool, dude. "Is it not mortifyingly embarassing blah blah Fidel Castro" I certainly never wrote that we did everything correctly in Cuba or in Iraq. What in the hell does that have to do with the reverend and Obama? "Should we be proud that idiots like Charlie Wilson" Sorry, didn't see it and don't get my politics from Tom Hanks movies. "Anyone who isn't honest and morally courageous enough to acknowledge that America has big problems is either dangerously ignorant or outrageously dishonest, and in any case totally unfit for public office." I defy you to prove that McCain or Hillary have never acknowledged that America has big problems. You've gotten yourself into such a huff you don't seem to remember what we were talking about. The reverend? Obama? Their 20 year relationship as spiritual and political advisor? You seem to be missing the point almost entirely. "Or would you rather have politicians who play pretend?" To pretend that this relationship is of no import is pure folly.
hadenough If she does this, she may still have a chance to serve in an Obama cabinet, but if she bitches to the end, she will divide the Democratic party and strengthen McCain.
"Faith should not be used as a wedge to divide." Barack Obama Hey, people, please go to Obama's website, click on issues, faith and READ before you post -- stop parroting agenda-based cable news or campaign talking points. Thanks.
Obama has given a speech on his faith: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062901778.html http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/
Democrats drowning in a vat of apprehension....
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
What Next in Democratic Primaries?
With Barack Obama's win in Mississippi he now leads Hillary Clinton in pledged delegates 1411 to 1250. So the question arises, can Hillary Clinton catch up with Obama if she wins Pennsylvania, Indiana and Puerto Rico? A total of 272 delegates (not counting super delegates) are in play.
Assuming that Hillary Clinton wins all three primaries and delegates are allocated by same margin as in Ohio (Hillary's 75 to Barack's 66), she will gain 144 delegates to Barack's 128. This will bring her total pledged delegates to 1394 compared to Barack's 1539, so she will still be behind by 145 delegates. There still remain other states like North Carolina, where Barack is expected to win with a large margin.
If the democratic Party is seriously interested in taking back the White House, isn't it time for it to put some sense into the Clintons and tell them this is beyond their reach. Intrigue, insult and large state argument will not win her the nomination. It is the number of delegates that counts at the end of the day. McCain is out fund raising and consolidating while Democrats are still fighting it out.
Isn't there anyone in charge of the Democratic Party who can say enough is enough and tell Hillary to fold her tent gracefully?
Posted by Ajaz | March 14, 2008 12:30 PM