Bring on the Supers

As I've stated before, I expect to see quite a bit of movement on Superdelegates in the next two weeks.  If this gets wrapped-up before Memorial Day - it's good news for Senator Obama.  If it extends to June 4th - it's good news for Senator Clinton.

There are now more unpledged Superdelegates left than there are pledged delegates.  Senator Clinton's win in Indiana was symbolic in that it is still a victory.  However, the net delegate gain on the night went to Senator Obama since North Carolina has more delegates - and his wider margin of victory netted him a larger percentage of delegates.  The overall math doesn't look good for Clinton, either.

I've stated before that most Supers do not revel in the notion of putting one candidate over the top.  Having said that, Kos recommends waiting two weeks until Oregon.

Note: Congressional recess is Memorial Day week, which is right after Oregon.  Unless Senator Clinton has enough momentum generated from potential wins in West Virginia and Kentucky, many undeclared Members of Congress will be dealing with a looming issue of a presidential nomination when heading to their home districts.  Not a prospect to revel in.

Finally: Obama memo on Superdelegates here.

Comments

[milkyway]

As an Obama supporter, May 21 is my preferred date for Clinton to drop out of the race. If she were to do so now, the first contest would be in WV where the new presumptive nominee will take a big loss. I would rather Obama be crowned after a big win in Oregon. A big Clinton win in Kentucky that same night will give her and her supporters something to feel good about.

I also can't imagine that the party wants to see our likely nominee having to fight for votes in Puerto Rico. But it might help with some segments of the Latino vote if he were to go there on a victory tour.

[Jon]

When will you endorse? What are you waiting for?

[Judy]

There is a block of voters (myself included) that cannot vote for Obama. It is not a racial thing - I cannot vote for a man for President that stayed in Rev. Wright's church for 20 years, has associations with known terrorist, associations with Rezko - the laundry list goes on and on. It is a deep matter of principle. You say it is not Obama who has done those things or who believes those things - I don't buy it.

Some reporters are revisiting the Obama/Clinton ticket - calling it the dream team. I would love to believe in the dream team - it would be so easy. If he was anyone but who he really is - I could vote for a dream team.

I have supported and admired Hillary, but if she is on a ticket with Obama - my vote is gone.

I really believe pundits, DNC, supers, etc. really are delusional or they really don't care about a block of voters that cannot and will not vote for Obama. It is real. It is not empty threats.

So, when it all comes down within the next 2 weeks; remember, you are losing a block of voters that don't seem to count for anything.

NO OBAMA/CLINTON
NO OBAMA/WHOEVER

[Dan_in_upstate_NY]

You said: "Most Supers do not revel in the notion of putting one candidate over the top."

I don't understand that statement; superdelegates were created precisely for the purpose of exercising independent judgment, and--in close contests--putting one candidate over the top. Whether it's Clinton or Obama, whether it's May 20 or June 4, this race won't be over without supers putting someone over the top. One can argue (as you have) that supers should just "rubber stamp" the delegate leader. However, that in itself is no more than a personal judgment about how superdelegates should exercise their voting power. It still amounts to the same result: supers crowning a nominee (even if under the guise of "following the will of the people").

So, I ask: why wait? We all know where this is going to end. Seems like now is as good a time as any.

[Joe]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050701425.html?hpid=topnews

Clinton backer calls for her to drop out.

Mind you, I actually don't think she should, although I support Obama. Get a compromise to give her the lion's share of Florida and Michigan. Get the supers to start declaring more publicly. And, if at all possible, let Oregon put Obama over the top. I think it would defuse things a little.

[observer]

What do you mean by "good news" for Clinton? Simply prolonging her agony isn't good news, I think. The only good news would be an actual lead in delegates, which seems pretty unlikely.

[OlderVoter]

Mr. Super,

When do you think you will declare?

[Carol]

With all due respect to the process I say ENOUGH already. It is time for this to be over. The math is final. It is now up to the superdelegates to do their job and endorse the candidate who has won the most popular votes, pledged delegates and states. The only one who benefits from this going on is McCain. Senator Clinton has lost my respect. She should bow out graciously. Since that hasn't happened the superdelegates should step up to the plate and put an end to this primary. Do you want to win in November or not?

[TMo]

Does this mean you will declare before Oregon?

[Dave]

In all measures this race is over. This is the time to heal our party. As long as we stay away from negative tactics I see no reason for the candidate who is behind to withdraw except for monetary reasons. At this point we would be better off joining up and running as a party against McCain.

We now have a nominee of the party this will not change. The minds of the voters and the fact that we are one party pulling together will change. With the backing of all Democrats we can use the next few primaries to allow Oregon to put our nominee to be placed over the top. This would show that the winner was placed there by the people who showed up in record numbers.

The supers need to keep their powder dry for the moment and let this play out. We we know on May 20th. I don't want to see either candidate wounded for such a strong campaign.

You can do the math and know where we are headed, but you can not heal the deep wounds without allowing each candidate the time to speak to their supporters.

Take a deep breathe and start to prepare for August.

[patagonia]

It's over. Time for you to endorse and end this thing.

[J S]

Or Supers endorsing in sufficient numbers to allow the voters of Kentucky and Oregon to put him over the top might make for a better narrative?

I notice that we're down to WV, KY, OR, PR, MT and SD. No states with substantial African-American population.

I also notice that today the Clinton campaign has begun to substitute "white voters" for where they used to say "working class voters". As in "Sen. Clinton is the better G.E. candidate because she can win white voters."

Do I need to spell it out? Your comment as to your own opinion of this? The feeling of other Supers?

[Grapevine]

Working it out so that Obama clinches the nomination in Oregon seems like a good way to go. As a Hillary supporter who has finally, reluctantly, signed on to the fact that Obama is the nominee in the wake of last night's results, I was hoping she'd concede today. Looks like we've got a couple more weeks of this, but there's really no question as to who wins this thing now. It's time for the Democrats to come together behind Obama. Just wanted to let you and any other interested supers know that while Hillary's still going on, some of her supporters are ready to move on to November with Obama now and get past this whole thing. Get this thing to 2209 so that there's nothing left to contest.

[Chuchundra]

Four more Supers for Barry O today. That includes one defection from Clinton. HRC gets one today too. That makes it a +4 day for Obama.

[TheSteve]

Mr. Super,

Why would it benefit Clinton if it extends to June 4th? Is it because of Puerto Rico, or do you think the DNC Rules Committee are going to seat FL and MI?

[Will]

To those HRC supporters,

Let's face it. The "highly probable" Democrats' nominee is Obama. I don't mind HRC continues to run until the last primary, but for those HRC supporters who are no longer involved in any primary, you should take a closer look at Obama and compare / contrast with McCain.

So here are 3 possible things that will happen to you.
1. Unite and vote for Obama
2. Stay at home and don't vote
3. Vote for McCain

At the end of the day, Obama's agenda will be the Democrats' agenda. And it boils down to Democrats vs GOP agenda.

There may be some of you that will not do option "1", but I just can't see why you would go as far as option "3".

Can you enlighten me to any positive aspect from the GOP's agenda that I am not seeing, especially after going through 8 years of this?

[Tony]

I am a HRC supporter, but I have long resigned myself to the fact that Obama is the likely nominee. I still believe that she is the one candidate that can definitively win in the fall while strengthening American liberalism and enhancing the party for future generations based upon voting blocs, policy measures, and other attributes. I think Obama can win, although the fight is much closer than many seem to be acknowledging. I don't care that much about Rezko, Weahter Underground, and what not. I care about his inability to sell an economic message to blue collar workers. Granted, perhaps this is a nod towards HRC's extraordinary ability to "sell", something this party has lacked for many a generations. For once, though, we have the ability to mobilize labor as a political entity with power again, and this extraordinary opportunity should not be passed. I know a lot of Obama supporters argue that he has blue collar, but not white working class. I find that delineation to be a bit too thin of a line (for full clarity's sake, I'm Asian). If Obama is the nominee, I hope he takes the wise course of selecting someone to buffer up his economic "sellability". If this means reaching across to a HRC supporter, he should do that.

There's been this huge assumption made that the economic vote will go to us. This is predicated upon a current economic climate. The problem is, as history has shown, more often than not, you still need to complete the sell. Certainly, the environmental dynamics will be a boost to Democrats, but it is likely not the decisive factor. Again, one must ask - is this an election about ideology or is this an election on Bush. If it's the latter, which I believe it to be, then selling becomes more magnified. At this point in time, I do not see a clear VP option within the Obama "camp" that looks like someone that can win broad appeal in a GE and sell the economic vision. There are certain SD's that have not aligned that offert his opportunity.

That said, as noted, I've long resigned myself to the fact that Obama will be the nominee. To be frank, I never found either one of these individuals to be "rock stars" or however it was stated. Good candidates, yes. Perhaps I don't have a clear idea on what it takes to be "rock star" political candidates. I don't dislike Obama - I think he seems like a decent guy overall. My focus and hope is on definitively winning the GE, though, and that is why I could not support him personally. I will vote for him unless he does something really macaca-ish (and let's be honest, he's come closer than anyone would acknowledge, perhaps not in the same context as what Allen did, but in terms of stepping near the edge).

In terms of this GE, I think the drop date is likely after Memorial Day and after the decision on Michigan and Florida has been made. She needed a game changer, and she missed. That's the reality of it. Had she even gotten a moral victory out of NC last night (say, single digits), then the dynamics may have shifted. She didn't, and that's that. That said, with Dean inching away from certifying 2025 as a definitive measure on "winning", the Michigan and Florida decision is critical, unless SD's come out en masse. The chances of MI and FL getting full seating from Credentials seems slim, and at that point, no matter the "score", it is game, set, match. We're basically at Ad-Obama right now. If they do come out en masse pre-Memorial Day, I'll be surprised, but then again, mrsuper would know more than any poster here. I just don't see the rationale behind an en masse move when the indications for this past Tuesday was basically a draw (both sides got what they needed), and the fact that late deciders were won by HRC, which should be a warning sign for SD's towards Obama's policy planks.

Clearly, Obama is attempting to bridge the gap within the party based upon his speech last night. I think for him to win over HRC supporters, one small change in tone from his camp needs to occur over the next week. For me personally, the idea that there will be a "coup", as certain bloggers have argued, is ridiculous. It gives the idea that half of the party (and yes, it's basically half and half) is involved in a coup is ridiculous and antagonistic. Beyond that, I'd like to see him reframe some of this rhetoric. The idea that the man makes the politics is wishful thinking. I know, I'm 26, college graduate. I should probably be this doe-eyed idealist based upon the mass generalizations we get through this primary season. Reality is reality, though. The politics of things are always a level on its own.

I hope the party recognizes this amazing opportunity we have to do right for liberal and progressive ideas. I hope the party recognizes that having blue collar support isn't something that's part of the old coalition (as Ms. Brazile put it). It's something that we haven't had in a long time as a national political force. It is an area for this party to expand. I hope the party reocgnizes that we need to sell to these individuals. We cannot risk giving these individuals other justifications to base their vote upon, and it seems clear that "It's the Economy, stupid."

[elrod]

Judy,

I'd like to know why you are so uncomfortable with Obama's pastor, but somehow you're OK with Hillary's outright lies about Bosnia and NAFTA.

Puzzled....

[basil]

I wonder if Hillary would like some cheese with her whine?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMlfYgbOLVs

[Beck]

An article in today's The Hill says that most congressional supers don't feel any need to follow pledged delegate totals and/or popular vote, but plan to vote for whoever they believe is most electable (or in some cases, who they believe would be the better president.)

I think they are deluded. If either candidate is ahead in pledged delegates, super delegates and popular vote - but is awarded the nomination because the remaining supers consider him/her more electable, his/her electability is going to drop immediately. And if the perceived rationale is that an African American -- or a woman -- will not be nominated because the super-supers decide that such characteristic makes the candidate unelectable, look for defections in droves.

I am a 58 yr old white feminist who strongly supports Obama, although I was a vocal Clinton supporter prior to this election. If voters ultimately choose Clinton I will be unhappy, but will live with it in order to end the Republican reign. But if the elected supers override an ultimate Obama lead in delegates and popular vote, and deny him the nomination because of his race or associations, regardless of whether they cloak the decision as a test of "electability", I will abandon the party in a heartbeat because it no longer will have any claim to represent my values.

[Judy]

James Zogby is a superdelegate? I just saw him on CNN - calling for Clinton to withdraw. He owns a poll company and is a superdelegate - this should be against the law.

His company did the polls that many said threw the polls off? Also, isn't there some scandal whirling around with the Zogby family and ties with islam groups. Also, Obama has had ties with the Zogby family????

I think we need to do away with the superdelegates - this is suspicious.

I am sick of this. Mr. Super can you please answer about Zogby????

[G Davis]

This shows the difference between the Reps and the Dems.

This race is over. There is no metric whatsoever that would allow the Clintons to get the nomination without political chaos reigning.

The Reps would face it and move on. The Dems are jumping through all make of hysteria hoops, weighing every conceivable (and many unconceivable) ways this could work out remaining bogged down in some facade of fairness.

What malarky. This country is in dire need of honest, forthright leadership and if the Dems hope to convince the country they should be the leaders, they'd best start acting like leaders.

The media will NOT focus on McCain (or Obama for that matter) so long as the Clintons cling to center ring in this circus. Obama has been saying virtually the same thing for a year and a half yet folks still don't seem to know him and what he represents. Of course they don't as all anyone is ever talking about is the Clintons! McCain is running around the country making one faux pau after another and no one hears it as the media is so focused on the Clintons.

The Clintons were party leaders for years and most think they've done good for the party. But they're like the loving family pet that is old and sick. Many love them, emotionally many hearts are breaking watching it but intelligently we know it's time to take the old dear to the vet and put it out of it's misery.

Having the Clintons running around WV and Kentucky appealing to the basest of those states instincts is NOT helpful to the party or more importantly the nation.

The Dem party installed the supers to take charge over a renegade candidate. Just because the renegade isn't the new guy doesn't relieve the supers of that responsibility. Take charge of this *problem* and solve it like true leaders.

If the supers can't muster that leadership, they should either not have a vote or they should do away with the whole superdelegate as wise sage party leaders charade altogether.

Imagine what would be happening if the two campaigns positions were reversed. Would there be any question at all that the supers would have declared wholesale by now against the new guy?

It's long past time to stop this circus. Imagine what good all this energy and money could do for exposing McCain for what he is, not to mention highlighting and helping all those down ticket races that are the REALLY important issue in this next election.

[Jennifer]

Enough with the Rev. Wright nonsense. How many gays and women stay members in the Catholic church which tells them gays will burn in hell and women are unfit to lead a church? How many parents stay in the Catholic church despite the decades of child molestation by priests? People do not leave their church family because they don't agree with the pastor.

Hilary should continue to run in a way that is not negative and cause damage to Obama. If she will continue to give the republicans ammunition she needs to get out right now. Otherwise, let her have her little "victory" in W. Virginia and Kentucky and phase out slowly with whatever dignity she has left, if any.

Finally, this whole "white voter" argument is pointless in light of Obama's taking of states such as Wyoming, Virginia and other states with almost non-existent black populations.

[Joe]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/07/limbaugh.obama/

Limbaugh flip-flops. Even though I was once a Republican, I consider him now to be just as much of an **** as he's always been.

[Beth]

Judy -

I have really got to ask you two things:

1. Do you really believe EVERYTHING the MSM tells you?

2. Do you ever do your own research on the candidates yourself?

I ask this, because I live in IL, where Sen. Obama is from. The Rezko trial, amounts to absolutely zippity doo da in terms of Sen. Obama. Heck, they are still searching to tie Rezko to our Gov., but that's failing as well. I'm inundated here in the Chicago Media market with Rezko trial junk, and it's seriously nothing. I wish I could help to feed those flames of Rezko for you, but I really can't.

As for Rev. Wright... did you bother to go see his full sermon? It's on YouTube, you really can't miss it, just search it out. I don't condone his words, but I do truly understand his context. And might I also point out, that if you think what Rev. Wright said was inflammatory, may I remind you that MLK said FAR more inflammatory things in regards to our country and soldiers in Vietnam. He's now got a national holiday named after him. Go figure.

As for William Ayers... he was EIGHT years old when William Ayers did those things? Are you so shortsighted, that people must run every person they meet through an investigation immediately to make sure they are "vetted" because they MIGHT run for public office? If that's the case, please apply the same logic to your esteemed candidate, as her laundry list is a LOT longer than Sen. Obama's.

That's about the whole list I can think of that runs against Sen. Obama. I'm sure you'll repost when you think of some other arguments against him, whether real or imagined.

I do remember the Clinton era, VERY well, as it was my very first voting experience. And I can tell you exactly why I would NEVER vote for your candidate, dream ticket or no:

1. Bill's repeated "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" on the airwaves, over and over, on the taxpayer dollar. I loved spending my hard earned tax dollars to be lied to. Please do not point out that this has nothing to do with Hillary, for she also went out of her way to demonize every female who stepped up. My memory is quite clear on that thanks. And if she wants to run on his record, which she has, then she can run on his mistakes as well.

2. NAFTA - wow, where to go. I live in Chicago, want to ask Sen. Obama about our steel plants here? I dare say he knows far more about them than your esteemed candidate.

3. Colombian Free Trade - Her husband is lobbying for it, took $800k for it, her top strategist Mark Penn paid $300k by the Colombian government to lobby for it, but yet she is saying she's against it? If you're going to judge Sen. Obama over Ayers, then I suggest you judge her for Penn, then you can judge Obama for Wright, and justly judge her for her husband. That wipes both those slates clean huh?

4. Her Hillary-Care in the 90's, is representative of her Gas Tax "holiday". She doesn't need experts, she's not going to put her lot in with them. I had TONS of respect for her when she started working on Hillary-Care, right up until it was shown she did not bother to request both sides viewpoints. It was her way or the highway. We are not a dictatorship, and thank god for our Senate and Congress!

5. And now I've watched this campaign... she was the presumptive nominee. It was hers to lose. And she did, spectacularly. She planned poorly, ran her finances wrong, betted on the big money running her to Washington, and lo and behold, we the people, have said enough is enough.

6. Obliterate Iran - JUST what this country does NOT need, to make threats against a country whose leadership is already anti-US. I notice that little coverage has been given by the MSM of Iran writing to the UN on this threat by her, and the UN's response.

7. The Gas Tax Holiday is in and of itself a gross pander. I live in IL remember, we tried it. It failed MISERABLY. It's her way of trying to convince those low information voters of how she "feels their pain" while she can't even get a cup of coffee from a local gas station. But she's not an elitist... nooooo.

8. Bosnia, do I EVEN need to go here? Several times she lied about this event, she did not mis-speak. She out and out lied. Not once, not twice, but three times from what we've seen.

9. Her Republican talking points are simply not Democratic and to use these against a fellow Democrat are disgusting.

And it's been close when I've been close to tell the Democratic Party to go to hell while I watched Hillary slam her opponent with the worst sort of negativity and race-baiting. I may still, if they somehow manage to give this to her. I'm an Independent, and so I'm not tied to one party or another. But I will tell you what I will do if she becomes their nominee, I will write Obama's name in, rather than pick between one power hungry Repub or the other. I no longer consider her a Democrat, under any definition. And if she decided to run in 2012 as a Republican because the Democrats don't give this to her, then more power to her. She'll fit their bill quite nicely.

And on a side note: I'm a 37 year old white single mom of two children. And a feminist on top of that. I would LOVE a female president, really I would, but not her. I need to vote for one that has morals, ethics and really truly cares about this country more than she cares about power and making history.

[Dave]

To you out there saying end this. How would things look if our nominee ended up losing two out of three of the next contests? We are already seeing how the MSM is treating McCain for losing a little over 25 percent of his party last night.

Wouldn't this make a strong candidate look weak? A strong positive push to the finish with the two candidates pushing on McCain is how to finish this. Sending Bill into McCain's strong holds to do low key negative attacks while the two candidates stay above all the negative attacks.

We are the party of the people. Stay positive and move forward. Soon we will be bringing things together and cleaning up the mess in Washington.

[louie]

Psssst, Hillary-- It's over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdzCxvbe5Hg

[Tony in MI]

Dave asks "To you out there saying end this. How would things look if our nominee ended up losing two out of three of the next contests?"

Good reason for her to stick it out through Oregon.

[Joe]

> If Obama is the nominee, I hope he takes the wise course of selecting someone to buffer up his economic "sellability". If this means reaching across to a HRC supporter, he should do that.

Absolutely. As an Obama supporter, I don't care one bit about Hillary or Obama "camps" and if reaching across them will strengthen him, go for it! The economy and the war are both strong issues for him to press against McCain, and I think he should go full throttle on both of them.

But I don't mind Hillary staying in the race if it will smooth things out. The Oregon plan, if feasible, is the way to go, IMHO.

[G Davis]

All those insisting the Clintons stay in you're forgetting the real issue here...down ticket.

Nationally, the Dems look bad tearing at each other. If they look bad nationally, it reflects on downticket races.

Money...dollars are flowing freely to the national campaigns but the down ticket folks are not having such success. At a million dollars a day EACH to run the national campaign, think of the number of down ticket races that could be fully funded with that.

Political exhaustion...even those of us who are junkies are getting tired of politics. We've been at this longer than most national campaigns from start to finish and we haven't even reached the conventions yet. Look at the candidates...they're both walking zombies. There must be some down time before the REAL fight begins or neither would make it to the finish line.

Look...we all want a progressive agenda put forward to change the direction of this country, but that will NOT happen if we don't remake Congress. The Prez race is important for vision, but if we don't start focusing on Congress, nothing will get implemented no matter who the nominee is.

This battle is artificial and is doing nothing but enabling the Clintons false reality. They simply cannot win and it's time for the leaders of this party and nation to end this.

The country is in desperate need of solid, honest leadership...including those folks in the leadership role of superdelegate.

It's time to get to the business of moving the whole party forward, not just placating the Clintons.

[Truth]

Yet another reason we should all bow down to the Clintons:
http://zzpat.tripod.com/graphs.htm

If you didn't improve your financial standing in the 90s, then you simply didn’t have a skill and your school counselor was right. Check out manufacturing and black poverty. If even Michelle Obama can talk badly about Hillary controlling Bill, then it is fair to show his positives far outweighed his negatives.

Any true Democrat would have been on Bill's side during the Republican witch hunt. Keep in mind, Lewinsky wasn't even the "warrant". The original charges brought were all dropped. That would be like the cops busting into your house with a warrant to find a "terrorist" and hauling you away for smoking pot. Except smoking pot is usually illegal. Adultery is not, so Bill's rights were violated even greater than that example.

Here is a clue. The more you demonize Bill, the more you are destroying the party. It is in fact Obama supporters, using the Republican playbook.

[The Grand Panjandrum]

@Truth: The Clintons knew damn good and well the the Right Wing wouldn't use ANY lever to their advantage. The '92 primary season and GE should have been an indicator the Bill was subject to criticism for his womanizing. (I personally don't don't care what Bill does, but the Republicans were going to make it an issue.) AFTER he took office and KNEW the Republicans were looking for any smear, ANY opening, he chose to have sex with a 21 year-old intern. I defended him as did most Democrats. Bill Clinton threw the entire party under the bus for his own carnal desires. Its really that simple.

As I said before, it is no ones business who Bill was fooling around with, but he knew Repulicans would make it an issue if it ever came to light. Bill Clinton spent the last couple of years saving his Presidency when we could have been making progress. Sorry but its time for them to fade into history. If New York chooses to keep Senator Clinton, good for them. She is just now coming into her own as a Senator and will be a valuable part of the Democratic leadership in the Senate. She may even make an excellent Majority Leader--some day. The people of New York can deal with them.

We have far too much work to be done and the almost 8 years of decimation our Constitution, economy, and world standing have suffered under the Former Cheerleader are in dire need of repair. We must not only elect a Democrat to the WH, but it is imperative that we expand our majorities in both houses of Congress.

Barack Obama continues to register new voters at a record pace and will begin a new nationwide voter registration project this Saturday, May 10th. His fundraising apparatus is unprecedented.

Its time for SD's to move off the fence. We need roughly 125-130 SD's to commit to Obama now so that on May 20th the voters of KY and OR put him over the top (if that is the real reason SD's are waiting). I personally don't buy it. By my count only 22 undeclared SD's remain in states/territories that have not yet voted. I see no valid reason for the remaining SD's (242) to continue on the fence expcept for personal political gain. If SD's are supposed to lead, then now is the time.

This is time of year when we (and the nominee) should be defining John McCain AND putting the GE strategy in place.

The Clinton claim that the '92 nomination wasn't secured until June 1992 is technically. Bill had effectively won much earlier. Jake Tapper has the timeline here:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/the-june-myth.html

That should put to rest the HRC spin about when Bill "won" the nomination.

My unsolicited advice to the undeclared 242 SD's in states/territories that have already voted: Lead, Follow, or get the hell out of the way. We need a nominee on May 20th. Two weeks later is two weeks to late. Time is money.

[Will]

Mr Super,

I think we should start the "healing process".

The main goal is to win over HRC supporters to Obama and why they should not even think of voting for McCain

We can start with a thread highlighting "small differences" between HRC vs Obama and "huge difference" between HRC and McCain.

Personally, I don't want to see Obama-Clinton ticket.

[Bilbo]

Appreciating OUR fiscal responsibility during President Bill Clinton's terms does not preclude criticism of him for specific policy decisions during that time or the choices he has made since. I think the argument that he was dealt a good hand has some merit, but for the most part I am thankful for the way Bill played it. Bill showed strong leadership which is why he has been so respected. We should not demonize him, but let's not act like Republicans who worship Reagan. Bowing down to the Clintons brings to mind a monarchy, which is a concern for many Americans. While some may vote for Hillary because she is the wife of Bill Clinton and they did well in the 90s, I prefer to base my decision on the merits and positions of the candidates as well as who I think would make the better president. Fortunately it is a democracy, so we can debate and disagree but in the end we have to follow the rules and accept the outcome. Hopefully Obama supporters can be understanding of the frustration Hillary supporters feel. Better to let them vent while encouraging them to join the battle against McCain. But, Truth and Judy if you push silly arguments you're going to get silly replies expecting otherwise is...silly. Mr Super provides a good forum for us to talk about superdelegates, the nomination process, electability, etc...let's keep it real.

[LindaS]

Well said, Bilbo. It would be nice if this forum weren't hijacked by silly arguments.

[J S]

I'm going to hazard a guess that since the campaign has taken such a radioactive turn, Mr. Super doesn't want to address the dog whistle change in the Clinton campaign rhetoric about "white voters". And I can understand that.

But as Sen. Feinstein has said, what is the Clinton path to the nomination at this stage? Meaning a path that doesn't involve "destroying the party to save it". I believe I heard Sen. Feinstein say she asked that of the Clinton campaign a couple of days ago, and they have not returned her call.

I think that speaks volumes.

[G Davis]

I agree that the *healing* needs to start sooner rather than later.

I also agree that the dog whistle mess is making the Clintons more irrelevant than they already were.

I also agree there is no path available to the Clintons to winning this thing, and the discussion should go forward about how to hold the new voters as growing the party is the surest path to national leadership now and down the road. The last general produced the largest voting total ever, yet still only included roughly 1/2 the eligible to vote aged citizens.

The Dems have lost elections because they insist on playing the game on the Reps field and by the Rep rules. Grow the party to include more of that 1/2 that doesn't ever vote and reset the rules to the Dem metric, the Dem field, the Dem rules.

That starts with the Dem leaders not cowering any more in the face of tough decisions. That starts with honest, open Dem leadership.

If the supers are going to keep this overriding role in the election process, they are going to have to be the first to display strong, honest and open leadership.

If they don't want to do that, they should give their vote back to the party and revamp the system to get rid of the whole concept of party *leadership* superdelegate.

The American people are starving for true leaders. This primary is over and everyone knows it. No agenda of ANY candidate will get through Congress as it is now. Down ticket is THE most important part of this current election cycle process.

It's time to start leading the way to what is really important to this country.

Let's get to supporting those down ticket races with all the money and energy that's being wasted on an already over primary race.

[JS]

Mr. Super,

Kos is not suggesting supers wait until may 20th. He's suggesting the should let the voters on May 20th put Obama over the top. That they should refrain from endorsing en mass until after Oregon gets him to 2025. If he's currently at 1847... he's likely to get 14-17 from WV and 22-27 from Kentucky. That's a conservative 36 put together. Takes his total to 1883. Adding 35 from Oregon leaves roughly 110ish from the total. I would suggest that ideally, about 120 supers should come out for Obama gradually between now and May20th (roughly 10 a day) so that the Oregon voters can be the ones to put him over the top. That would probably be the best thing for the party.

[Joe]

That starts with the Dem leaders not cowering any more in the face of tough decisions. That starts with honest, open Dem leadership.

If the supers are going to keep this overriding role in the election process, they are going to have to be the first to display strong, honest and open leadership.

If they don't want to do that, they should give their vote back to the party and revamp the system to get rid of the whole concept of party *leadership* superdelegate.
------

I agree. I'd like to see them stand up more in Congress. Even if they get nothing done, tell them it's your way or the highway on the war, economy, etc. and that if they don't like it, we'll pass it under a Democratic president.

[Truth]

Bilbo, pointing out some facts about Bill Clinton's real commitment to America's economic health is anything but silly. Silly is arguing what Ken Starr cost the tax payer as any Democrat knows the fault is solely with the Republicans on that issue. Bill Clinton successfully proved Reaganomics wrong and that infuriated Republicans. Those of you firing back with Clinton shortcomings miss the point. I like to talk actual issues and want to stunt conjecture and ideals by countering your holier than thou Obama with a dose of reality so we can get back to the issues.

If Obama comes in and proves their foreign policy wrong, do you not think they will be gunning for him with Rezko and catch him on a technicality of a character flaw that has nothing to do with his job performance? Obama has already been outright caught in a lie, so don't promote something (witch hunt) that could have blowback.

As far as bringing the party together, I agree. But I do not agree on the tactics of ending the primary early, which would actually make it worse. Obama needs to make a "crossover" change to earn those votes. I've already pointed to the capital gains tax as a simple reason why some might not vote for him even though they hate the Iraq situation.

He could explain how his health care plan will make it more affordable than a mandated health care plan (which defies logic). Just like Social Security would collapse if it was a choice.

He could explain his economic plan (which amounts to mortgage and SBA loans to minorities) in greater detail.

He could explain his energy plan in greater detail. He constantly just says "solar, wind" with no real detail. That is insane considering solar/electric is the best mid term solution to making oil conservation possible. Talk more about nuclear and some steps to decrease waste so that it may be a boon.

He could reverse his criticism of Carter/Hamas considering it isn't in line with his recent Nigeria policy.

Obama's problems are his own and he needs to confront him if he expects “undeclared” swing voters to see him as a viable President, which means that electoral-vote.com argument would go away by turning more purple states with actual votes.

[Bilbo]

"Bowing to the Clintons" is silly. Agreed, Ken Starr was silly.

Regarding Reaganomics I think this article best compares it's results with those of Clinton.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_25/b3888037_mz011.htm

Maybe you are confusing a tiny but vocal holier than thou group of anonymous Obama supporters on the internet with Obama himself. He's rather humble about the fact that he is not perfect and has made mistakes.

I doubt anybody is suggesting that the hardcore republicans who would use Rezko and guilt by association tactics will not look for opportunities to attack Obama. Neocons foreign policy has mostly been discredited already by their results, but I don't expect them to stop playing the fear card and pushing for an unjustified war with Iran. Considering the turnout for Democrats in the primaries and continued support for Obama I'm confident they'll choose him over Bush III in November. Can you point me to my promotion of a witch hunt? Don't seem to remember that.

If the supers decide to end the primary by giving Obama the magic number it's not early. Most elections the candidate concedes once the math is impossible. We're nearing that moment even including FL/MI results. The emphasis is on her to show party unity and leadership to her disappointed supporters. Obama isn't calling on her to leave and has been gracious in my view.

I'm of the mind that a capital gains tax increase limited to the top 6% is a good idea. If you disagree than I would argue that Reaganomics is not as dead as you thought.

Obama's health insurance plan will be more attractive to crossover voters than Hillary's would be precisely because of the mandate. I can't imagine anyone wanting a mandate would find McCain's proposal better than Obama's. If you want to debate Hillary and Obama's proposals outside of the crossover context I am happy to. The financial penalties for enforcing a mandate are a big factor in my view. A mandate with a broken health care system will only require people to purchase insurance that is beyond their means or below their needs. Insurance companies will make out like bandits. Obama's plan will give time for health care fixes (proposed by both candidates) to be put in place bringing down costs as it increases incentive for more to voluntarily participate. If you don't agree with any of these arguments, I would than just ask the questions: What are the chances that Hillary would get a full mandate through congress? If she succeeded I believe it would constantly run over budget and few would be happy with the coverage provided, it would reverse all the gains of the Democratic party and provide Republicans with the wedge issue they desperately need.

You can read about his economic plan in greater detail at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/. Over the next six months I'm sure you'll hear more about it.

Electricity is the product, solar, wind, geothermal, etc are the source. I'm confident his energy plan (again check his website) will be talked about in detail over the general election and will give voters another reason not to choose "Gas Tax Holiday" McCain.

Maybe the criticism of Obama on his stance towards Hamas and Nigeria is warranted, but I suspect they are nuanced and reflect the complexity of the situations. Hopefully they appeal to more voters than the "Bomb, bomb, bomb" or "obliterate" Iran diplomacy. It would be good to hear more from each of the candidates on foreign policy.

[V.B. Reno NV.]

Hillary the fighter, tough as nails, Rocky Balboa, now its they hit me and I'm a girl or this is the same as the civil rights movement, are you kidding me? If there are any Black supers out there are you not going to declare now to show this strange person that it is not the same.

[suekzoo]

V.B. Reno: Even more absurd is the comparison to Zimbabwe.