The New York Times updates on the candidates’ efforts to snag super-delegates in the event that the Democratic presidential nomination is not be settled in the primaries and caucuses. Super-delegate Donna Brazile, last heard threatening to quit the party over the possible impasse, is getting lobbied by her niece. Meanwhile, the candidates state their positions:
Mr. Obama, talking to reporters in Seattle on Friday, said he believed superdelegates should follow the will of the voters.
“My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the country, that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters,†Mr. Obama said. “I think it is also important for superdelegates to think about who will be in the strongest position to defeat John McCain in November and who will be in the strongest position to ensure that we are broadening the base, bringing people who historically have not gotten involved in politics into the fold.â€Â
Mrs. Clinton, campaigning Saturday in Maine, disputed Mr. Obama’s interpretation of how superdelegates should make their decision… She brought up Senators Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts; both men have endorsed Mr. Obama, but Mrs. Clinton won that state on Tuesday.
“Superdelegates are, by design, supposed to exercise independent judgment… But, of course, if Senator Obama and his campaign continue to push this position, which is really contrary to what the definition of a superdelegate has historically been, I will look forward to receiving the support of Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry.â€Â
Sounds like Mrs. C carries a bit of a grudge. Who’da thunkit? But the snark is only temporary camoflage for her apparent fear of the judgment of her fellow Democrats.
(h/t Memeorandum.)
Clinton has already wrapped up the nomination. She isn’t even debating Barack Obama any longer.
Barack is winning caucuses in Nebraska and Washington state, along with winning the Louisiana Primary. The AP, reports, however, that Clinton isn’t even phased by it:
“Clinton made no mention of the night’s contests as she appeared at a Democratic Party dinner in Virginia, site of one of three primaries this Tuesday. Instead, she criticized Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee in all but name. “We have tried it President Bush’s way,” she said, “and now the Republicans have chosen more of the same.”
The fix is in. The Democrats, who have not a single black person in any high-level leadership position in the House, Senate or DNC, won’t allow a black man to get nominated.
Kennedy knows this already, and so supporting Obama doesn’t hurt him. He’s the consummate politician, knowing that you can vote for something you’re against if you know that it won’t matter anyway – just to look good in the papers.
Someone should ask McCain who he would vote for if he was a superdelegate.
What about … Well then there’s … And…
Oh.
Hey wait I found him. He’s the Democratic Caucus Chair in the House. That’s a very important job.
Never heard of him though.
Clyburn didn’t endorse Obama though. He made noises after Bill’s racist implosion or whatever, but he never really did anything.
What was it those nasty proggs were calling Condi Rice and Colin Powell? “House” something?
I don’t know why the above made me think of that label, and I’m sure I’m not entitled to think in those terms…
Hahaha, tell me ABCNews isn’t in the tank. If you go to their website right now they have this headline:
“Obama takes three states, Virgin Islands.”
The photo? Why, it’s Hillary Clinton!
LMFAO
Oops. Here’s the link:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4268313
That’s a hoot. I think she is still the most likely nominee, though markets like InTrade say quite the opposite. I am really not in a position to gamble, but if layerguy thinks HRC’s spin from the fact that she has lost three of a likely nine in a row means she has it locked up, he should go make a killing at InTrade.
Here’s chitchat from a nobody on McCain’s VP choice…
Yeah I accidentally went to AOL. Anyway, I hadn’t heard this take before.
http://news.aol*.com/political-machine/2008/02/09/mccains-veep/
I agree with the Clinton lock. Hopefully she won’t cause too much damage before 2010. I want bloodlust and carnage from the left if she does win, first John goes down and then Obama, could be amusing.
Soeone who consistently polls a near-majority of people saying they will not vote for her should not be considered to have a “lock” on anything. Rasmussen’s current “vote against” number for HRC is 47%.
Karl, She is a lock IMHO because of the DNC and coperate backing. I know the DNC can’t officially back her but they will behind closed doors. She will get the superdelegates and Obama won’t. The Clintons are the Dem Mafia.
Popcorn. And a tall frosty lemonade, if you please.
We could have two dead parties before this one is put to bed.
Nobody will notice if the Dems fold; the smell will actually improve a bit….
And, hey, after a couple years of the Hildebeest, we might even get congress back. Well, the House, maybe. After all, a couple of years of “triangulation” to keep the folks in flyover country happy on national security probably won’t motivate the moonbat base, who are already pissed, to turn out.
Hell, if we get a new Reagan out of the deal by 2012, I won’t mind if she and Billy Jeff steal all the furniture, china, and silver on their way out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Women don’t like Hillary. Well. All women except the feminist/lesbian fringe. Hillary will not be president. I’m bettin money on it.
“Hillary will not be president. I’m bettin money on it.”
I’m thinking that, like Samson, she will take the whole temple down in her struggle. Both Hillary, and McCain to a somewhat lesser extent, value themselves above all else. Election season may be like a Godzilla movie this year. Collateral damage will be extensive.
Yeah I accidentally went to AOL.
Careful, hf. Your virtual stance is getting dangerously wide.
Pardon my ignorance.
Can someone enlighten me on the in’s and out’s of the electoral college. Why have they never wandered off the path in history? Sure, I see minimal mention of the faithless electors. But, they seem to have made simple mistakes; such as picking the VP as pres and pres candidate as VP.
I’m not sure on the details of Abraham Lincoln, and the rise of that 3rd party, in regards to how the electoral college was involved then. Was the structure that different from today?
Is it possible for us to make history, in the future, with a 3rd party candidate? Or is there too much political pressure to pledge to a candidate (of the two parties) and tow the line? If so, how does that happen? I’m pretty pumped up with either the Nazi party, Prohibition party, or Constitutional party candidates myself (sarcasm).
All this talk of super-delegates seems tied to a potential historical moment where they may decide the winner (of the two parties); not a 3rd candidate.
I’d like to hear some rational thinking on this and not all the conspiracy theory garbage I can find on the net.
Thanks.
It was an accident officer I swear. Seriously though it’s disheartening that that blight is so enduring. It’s like about.com for newbies.
The issue of super delegates and the democratic party is unconscionable. Currently Obama is ahead in the popular vote and behind in the delegate vote. We can not have 800 party insiders decide the primaries for us! I have created a protest page here
http://www.popularprimaryvotenow.com
If you think this is an issue please add a comment to the protest page of the website. I will print out all the comments and give them to the Democratic party.