Since the site has picked-up more readers, and since I've received more questions e-mailed and in the comments section over the past week, I thought it might be time to re-introduce the premise of the site and why I started it.
First of all - yes, I am an actual undeclared Superdelegate. I started this website a few months ago to offer a view on the Democratic nomination process for President, to debunk myths, to shed light on the process and to give the public a forum to interact on the topic of Supers.
So, why author the site anonymously? I stand by everything I've written on the site - but I didn't want the site to be about me, I wanted it to be about the topic of Superdelegates. My real name is Edward Espinoza and I am a represent California on the DNC.
The site was established under the premise that it would be a public service to give people access to the thoughts of a Superdelegate, and that no personal gain would be made - no advertising to earn money from and no name recognition to be gained.
Many members of the media verified my identity early on and agreed to keep it confidential in order to keep within the spirit of why the site was founded. Today I announced that I would reveal my identity because, as this process begins to wind down, I think that you the readers deserve to know where you've been getting your information from. I figured it to be fair.
But ultimately, this blog is about Superdelegates. I do not comment on debates or other issues that do not directly
pertain to Supers - I barely have time to post about just the subject of
Supers! I try but I am not always able to read all of the comments here - so if you have a question that you don't see answered in the site, try sending an e-mail. I will continue to offer my thoughts on a basis that is as objective as possible and provide you with background info as I am able.
I am not really a "blogger," but I have been in politics for quite some time which I think gives me a good point of reference in addition to being a so-called "Superdelegate." I have close ties to personnel in both campaigns. I try to keep the text void of emotion and be fair in my analysis. I won't bash anyone and I stand by everything I write here - I wouldn't type anything that I wouldn't say publicly.
Anyway, enough about me. Hope you enjoy the site.
RE: Superdelegates fiddling while Rome (er, the Democratic Party) burns?
Please refer to the following link.
Superdelegates to blame for enabling destructive campaign:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/28/21558/7663
An effort is now underway to inform the African American community that the party elders are allowing this destructive campaign, this transparent effort to destroy Obama, to continue because they are just looking for cover to STEAL the nomination from him and hand it to Hillary.
The above story and others like it are making their way to every African American media outlet because it’s high time that democrats start discussing why this is happening. But then, why should any of this surprise anyone? African Americans have had the worst schools in the nation and been the victim of a racist criminal justice system under both democrats and republicans. Unfortunately, they are only now beginning to understand just how much democrats were USING them for their votes, while pretending to believe in equality.
Women may be disappointed if Hillary doesn’t win, but they have no reason to feel cheated, because she lost fair and square. She lost the pledged-delegate race a long time ago. She knows it – everyone knows it. In fact, EVERYONE has known for a long time that Hillary’s only chance at winning the nomination was to destroy Obama and achieve a superdelegate coup, which she has been trying to achieve for two months as the press and the superdelegates recite her ever changing load of crap, like a bunch of brainless parrots.
Democrats have been depending on the African American vote for a long time, and maybe this election will be when that finally comes to an end.
You’re all so insane that you think African Americans won’t understand that if Hillary wins, the choice will be between a race-baiting fellow democrat who used dog-whistle racism and xenophobic smears to bring down the presumptive nominee, while he received NO SUPPORT from the party elders, and a racist old republican. Gee, choices, choices.
Posted by: Kim | April 28, 2008 at 07:26 PM
Shouldn't do that, or you'll tempt people to out you (see also: the PatentTrollTracker).
With this new information that you verified yourself to the press, given that the first to mention you was DemConWatch, you're narrowing it down a little :)
Maybe we should start a betting pool for after the nomination.... I'd say 2-1 you're on the credentials committee, though I don't have anything more than gut feeling to back that.
Or instead you could blog about those JakeD, jacksmith and RAT-The folks who post the first comment on almost every single news item on several newspapers, even all weekend, who seem to exemplify the right wing noise machine (emphasis on 'noise').
Posted by: Joe | April 28, 2008 at 07:28 PM
Kim - I think what undermines the premise of the post you've linked to on Kos is that it assumes that one of the campaigns would end if all of the Supers made their preferences known.
I am not convinced that it would.
Because all of the Supers will not all go in the same direction. Something greater needs to happen to bring finality to this race, and in the absence of such a political earthquake - the only option appears to be to let the clock run out.
Posted by: Mr Super | April 28, 2008 at 07:31 PM
Kim: IMHO (and only IMHO--I'm a total nobody who has nothing better to do than read the news from work), they're just waiting it out to soften the blow to the loser.
That's 99% likely to be Obama unless there's an 11th hour rule change and these may be politicians, but they're not that dumb.
I agree with you, though, in that it's unsettling to wait under after June 3rd. It's like waiting for the recounts to end. But at least this time we have a date to wait for.
I just wish it wasn't more than a month away...
Posted by: Joe | April 28, 2008 at 07:34 PM
Mr. Super, I appreciate the insight and perspectives that you are providing. Thank you for giving us an insider's view. Following a conversation I had with another superdelegate yesterday, I now have a sense of how complex this is for the supers who have not endorsed as well as for those who have (and wished they hadn't). I will attempt to be more patient with the process.
Posted by: OlderVoter | April 28, 2008 at 07:36 PM
Mr. Super and Joe,
I'd like to believe you. I really would. It's just that the behavior of the Clintons really boggles the mind. How else do you explain it? I'm usually not a negative person, but even Job got angry (not that I think I'm Job), and the Clintons crossed the line a long time ago. Why is the party allowing them to hold it hostage?
BTW - Nothing's been sent yet, and not because of a threat of being outed (It's easy enough to post from another computer). Waiting probably won't change anything anyway.
Posted by: Kim | April 28, 2008 at 07:43 PM
My oh my, this "politics" is just getting uglier and uglier. I can't believe there is not a superdelegate swarm toward Obama this week. I too see that the Clintons are holding the party hostage. For those supers who hold back, they are just giving Clinton further ammunition to promote her belligerent agenda. Why is it that you don't see that she is damaging the party? Why is the party allowing her to continue with her smear of Sen. Obama regarding FL/MI? Why do any supers believe that her upcoming expected "wins" in these small, noncontested GE states + the non-state of PR will constitute "momentum"? Makes me want to ask "what are you guys smoking?"
Posted by: LindaS | May 08, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Ahh, I wondered what happened to this old post! I knew you removed it after I commented that it would reveal your identity, but I had no idea you'd revive it a week or more later and include your identity this time :)
It's probably just for the best. Will the campaigns descend now? (Or have they already?) I'm sure your phone hasn't been quiet for a long time...
Posted by: Joe | May 08, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Thank you very much for this blog. It has been educational and interesting.
Posted by: Yondalla | May 08, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Of course, the downside to this is that you can never do this blog again in future elections. On the other hand, I'm sure that you'd rather not have to anyway, as I don't think the general sanity of the population could take that sort of drama again.
Posted by: Kevin Perlow | May 08, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Now that the Clinton campaign has rejected the latest compromise proposal for seating the Michigan delegates, do you see them being seated at all? How do you think this rejection will sit with super delegates who have been told by the Clinton campaign that part of the rationale for the candidacy was to ensure FL and MI are seated?
Posted by: Rick | May 08, 2008 at 01:03 PM
Thanks for continuing the dialogue with us Mr. Super. Although I'm glad to know who you are, I also want to say I don't feel we "deserved" this conversation or access to you per se, but it sure is appreciated and I respect you even more for talking with us.
Posted by: Flannery | May 08, 2008 at 01:07 PM
Mr. Super,
Appreciate your work. Glad to hear you worked for Bev Perdue. I voted for her here, really appreciated how she decided to run her campaign the last few months. If more politicians did us the type of service you do, we'd all be a lot better off.
Posted by: TheSteve | May 08, 2008 at 01:25 PM
Michigan Democrats just came to a settlement which gives Hillary Clinton a 10-delegate edge. And now she is rejecting that deal. Here's the link to the Michigan story--
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=awDl.IEqNQFA&refer=us
Posted by: basil | May 08, 2008 at 01:47 PM
Well Mr. Espinoza, I dare say I speak for many when I tell you that, "outed" or not, I/we continue to find this forum and your valuable insights to be "super"! Thank you for providing this valuable public service. And thank you as well for maintaining one of the few meaningful political websites where I don't feel the need for a mental shower and full delousing after perusing the reader-posted comments!
Posted by: Mark | May 08, 2008 at 02:02 PM
So was David Geffen there? (I saw the video)
Posted by: The Grand Panjandrum | May 08, 2008 at 02:18 PM
Mr. Super (or should I say Mr. Espinoza?),
I note that you refer to yourself as "undeclared," not undecided. Is it fair to infer that you have decided who to endorse? Also, when do you anticipate announcing your decision?
Appreciate the insight into the process.
Posted by: Another Mike | May 08, 2008 at 02:22 PM
Mr. Super... very cool, greetings from another Californian :-)
Below is a note that I emailed to my Congressional representative yesterday on the topic of her superdelegate endorsement.
**************************
Dear Representative Tauscher
Last summer when you endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton for the presidency, this position was viewed by myself and millions of others as an endorsement of the strongest candidate in our Party, the person who would almost certainly win the nomination.
Senator Clinton won California on Super Tuesday, which appeared to validate your endorsement.
Much has changed in the meantime.
Now another candidate has emerged as the choice of our Party in the most important metric, the DNC rules for the nominating process that our Party established at the start.
Senator Obama has amassed a lead in delegates that Senator Clinton will not be able to overcome. Sen. Obama has also amassed a several hundred thousand vote lead in the popular vote, leads this year in fundraising by 2 to 1, and leads in states won by 2 to 1. Senator Obama has weathered a tough nominating fight, and emerged strong.
Senator Obama is the single biggest reason we are witnessing an unprecedented surge in new voter registrations and young voter turnout for the Democratic Party. The importance of this cannot be overstated. More than twenty years of GOP dominance of national politics followed a similar wave of excitement during the Reagan Revolution. New voters tend to stick with their initial party of choice. Senator Obama's inclusive, inspirational, grassroots-based 50 state strategy could be the springboard to Democratic Party dominance in America for many years to come.
Sen. Clinton holds onto a slim hope that involves a bloody convention floor fight attempt to seat the MI and FL delegations based on elections that everyone, including Sen. Clinton, agreed were invalid. I implore you and other superdelegates not to allow this to happen.
Our Party stands on the verge of a split so painful that we are at a tipping point. Just a few short months ago, nearly all Democrats were excited about the quality of our candidates, and said they could enthusiastically support several of them. I was among these excited Democrats.
Yet now, there is a substantial and increasing number of supporters of the two remaining candidates who say that they will vote for Senator McCain, or else not vote at all if their preferred candidate does not win the nomination. If we do not stop this hemorrhaging very soon, the Democratic Party will lose to Senator McCain in the fall.
I have been a supporter of Senator Obama since January. Observing his campaign, my support for him has strengthened. I feel he is the best candidate to start to heal the hyper-partisan divisions in America. He is unusually gifted in his abilities to lead through calm reason, compassion, pragmatic analysis, respect, and yes, inspiration. Senator Obama is straight talk for real, not cynically plastered on the side of a bus. In nearly 30 years of voting and strong support for Democratic candidates, I have never seen a candidate for president whom I believe has Sen. Obama's potential. But that is not why I write to you today.
I respect the fact that you have sound and thoughtful reasons for your previous endorsement. My point is not to attempt to convince you that Senator Obama is the better candidate. The American people have already decided that he is the preferred candidate for our Party.
Senator Obama will win our Party's nomination. The only question that remains is, under what circumstances will he win? Will he go forward as a strong candidate, positioned to lead a united Democratic Party? Or as an irreparably wounded candidate, destined for defeat because of intra-Party fratricide?
You have always had my support because I view you as an unusually intelligent and pragmatic Democratic representative.
I implore you to look beyond who won your district, who won California, and even who you might believe would be your first choice as president. I ask that you help to heal our Party, and position our Party to win in November, by now uniting around Senator Obama as our Party's nominee.
Thank you for your consideration and for your service to our district.
Posted by: Laura | May 08, 2008 at 02:26 PM
Just wanted to say thanks for the site! At many times, during my reading of HuffPo and DKos and many other sites, I would get a bit overloaded with all the dissemination of information and theories. Was nice to come and see some sanity from the Supers standpoint. And while my mother has given up on Sen. Obama, I'm working on her (she pointedly blames the Super D's, sorry but she does).
And honestly, I really wish alot more of our politicians had sites like these where they could hear directly from their constituents on issues! I have no fear of the internet and going and stating my thoughts and positions!
So I hope we've all helped you in making up your mind (although as you stated yourself, most Super D's seem to know who they are giving their support, so I'm sure you do as well), and thanks again for helping keep us sane from all the myths and rhetoric out there!
Posted by: Beth | May 08, 2008 at 03:52 PM
Kim,
Do you expect the party who hasn't been able to stand up to George Bush to stand up to the only Democratic President to win re-election since FDR? It's not going to happen. The clock will run out, and then he'll win.
Posted by: Nate | May 08, 2008 at 05:10 PM
Why is the party so afraid? Why are Dean, Pelosi and Reid so afraid?
Do they not realize that is does Obama and the party no good at all to get blown out by 30+ pts in WV and KY. A poll out of WV today has Clinton up by 40! Does it do the party any good to have their nominee thrashed by 40 pts in a key swing state like WV? Will it do them any good to have him thrashed by 40 pts in a swing state like KY?
The party could have ended this after NC by having a whole bunch of Super Delegates and some big players like Pelosi, Biden, Carter, Gore, Edwards, etc... come out and endorse Obama.
Instead, a puny few Supers have declared since then.
The party's nominee is going to get his ass kicked in successive weeks by 40 pts.
And he supposed to claim victory on the 20th after he got walloped in KY earlier in the evening?
Don't they realize that Hillary will overtake him in the popular vote after Puerto Rico and will take this all the way to the convention?
Why is the pary afraid to end this?
Posted by: Jack | May 08, 2008 at 06:27 PM
Mr. Super already said that there aren't enough undeclareds to put an end to this for Senator Obama. Also, seeing as how he's going to get whooped in KY and WV whether or not Clinton drops out, it really does help if she's in it until Oregon so at least he's losing to a candidate who hasn't dropped out.
Posted by: Nate | May 08, 2008 at 07:54 PM
Jack, neither WV or Kentucky are swing states and I'm shocked anyone would pay any more attention to them than they do to Idaho or North Dakota... ;0
Seriously, the Clintons are irrelevant now. If they go on, they do so at the peril of their own legacy.
In short, if no one is paying attention to them, why would it matter if they won a state by 40 points? Who will remember it in the morning? ;0
As an aside, I agree with you...if the Dems are going to have these superdelegates as a party protection device, then the supers need to show the real leadership we're all begging for in this country and make the tough call.
If they don't want the responsibility, do away with the system. If they want the system, the supers are bound to lead the party out of disarray.
But since that's not likely to happen, why not look at the Clintons for what they are...irrelevant.
Posted by: G Davis | May 08, 2008 at 08:05 PM
If you really want to know where the negativity is coming from, Obama and McCain are already mudslinging. Figure it out. What is funny (not really) is McCain already took a swipe by Axelrod as a swipe against old people (exactly what Axelrod does with race). McCain has already secured the senior vote. Game over.
Obama will lose the General Election unless he starts making changes. His loss will be the true death of the Democrat Party.
Posted by: Truth | May 08, 2008 at 08:53 PM
Jack -
My answer would be that the party is afriad of losing a wonderful opportunity here. I am a HRC supporter, but I've resigned myself to hoping that Obama can beat McCain. That said, what HRC offers is an ability to expand the party. People assume that blue collar workers go with Democrats. The reality is that, they haven't, and yet, our economic message is the better one.
My guess is the party does not want to risk alienating a voter base that it can tap into again. The ability to mobilize labor once again, as a political force, could reshape American politics for the next few decades and provide Democrats with a consistent working margin. My guess is that they are trying to walk the tightrope to figure out how to not lose this critical opportunity, although I'm sure Mr. Espinoza could tell us if we are wrong or not.
Posted by: Tony | May 08, 2008 at 09:47 PM
First, let me say I like Hillary Clinton. I think she would have made a great president. However, she is mathematically eliminated from the race.
I think it is long past time for her to concede the race for the good of the party (facts are facts, look at the numbers). She has a chance to go back to the senate with her reputation intact and have a great career as a leader in the democratic party.
I used to complain about how Hillary Clinton's blind power-hungry ambition is causing her to use a "win at all costs" strategy.
Then it became clear to me in february that she basically was mathematically eliminated, and she only continued with some petulant "but i dont WANNA give up" attitude, succumbing to the temptation to go even more negative and hurt the party when her only chance of winning was to play games and get a disproportionate number of superdelegates.
Now I think it is the undeclared superdelegates who are hurting the party. Why havent you made up your mind? Obama has the popular vote and the pledged delegate count. This thing was wrapped up in February.
You, Mr. Super, should be ashamed of yourself. Do your part NOW and get this over with.
Posted by: marty | May 09, 2008 at 04:19 AM
G Davis: neither WV or Kentucky are swing states
Wrong. She is beating McCain by a good margin in West Virginia and she is within 2% of McCain in Kentucky with the momentum on her side. Barack is losing horribly in both.
Tony: That said, what HRC offers is an ability to expand the party. People assume that blue collar workers go with Democrats. The reality is that, they haven't, and yet, our economic message is the better one.
That is really the core of it all. That makes her stronger by EV against McCain.
marty: You, Mr. Super, should be ashamed of yourself. Do your part NOW and get this over with.
That is uncalled for. I think Mr. Super is doing the right thing even though it is clear he will vote for Obama. I don't have a problem with his vote for Obama (ok, maybe a little), but not letting the vote play out would absolutely lose a lot of the base Tony spoke about. It would like the supers were afraid of letting the people decide themselves and rush citing time when we after a year and a half of this. There just is no basis for that.
Posted by: Truth | May 09, 2008 at 05:32 AM
The idea that this was wrapped up in February is simply flawed. The whole idea that kos has tried to float, that half the party is attempting a coup, is the most ridiculous thing this whole cycle. Here's the reality of it. Nothing is over unless it's over. The requirement was winning delegates. It wasn't popular vote, pledged delegates, or what not. Now, maybe this process is flawed. Maybe that requirement should be revisited. Then again, maybe the party should do away with caucuses as well.
If Obama is the nominee,it's because he won enough delegates. He has yet to do that, so to suggest that this is done, that this is a "coup" attempt, is simply an attempt at spin.
Posted by: Tony | May 09, 2008 at 05:55 AM
@Truth:
It's wonderful to see how you've tempered your polemics since the last time I read your comments on this website. I think you have a crucial point to make, and that is that Hillary must be allowed to continue running during Kentucky and WV, simply because Obama stands to lose there even after she drops out, which will be a humiliation to his campaign and will almost certainly damage the crucial democratic fundraising efforts that are (hopefully) already underway.
I am happy that Hillary continues to run because the last state in this cycle is looking to be Oregon, which will definitely put Clinton out of her misery and will also give Obama a huge boost on the national media stage.
As to whether or not Obama will cause mass defections from the party, I think you should reassess the two candidates before you jump so quickly to conclusions. There is no confusion about Obama's policies and who they are designed to help; any election held during a massive recession such as this is the democrat's to lose. The only time a republican can possibly win is if he can appeal to moral conflicts such as gay marriage and abortion rights. Now, I am someone who believes the American populace to be fundamentally stupid and incapable of making educated decisions, especially when it comes to voting. However, when it comes down to it this November, who do you think that the blue collar worker is going to vote for? The guy who owns 9 houses, whose wife refuses to release her own tax returns, and who wants to stay in Iraq for the next 100 years (if the democrats are smart they will connect the two dots between Iraq and the economy), or the guy who is fighting to expand government protection of mortgages and trying to improve education and healthcare?
Posted by: Walker | May 09, 2008 at 09:29 AM
Welcome to the party, Mr. Super!
Posted by: J S | May 09, 2008 at 09:43 AM
Mr. Super has endorsed Obama.
Posted by: Andrew | May 09, 2008 at 09:44 AM
Thanks for your endorsement :)
Now focus against McCain and Kathleen Sebelius for VP.
Obama 08'
Posted by: Arnaud | May 09, 2008 at 09:58 AM
> McCain already took a swipe by Axelrod as a swipe against old people (exactly what Axelrod does with race). McCain has already secured the senior vote. Game over.
Really? I thought that was weak. I mean, he compares Obama to Hamas, then tries to stretch out "losing one's bearings" to an attack on age? I liked the retort: that losing one's bearings has nothing to do with age, given that ridiculous reply of theirs.
But you do have a good point that McCain will try and do that from now on.
Posted by: Joe | May 09, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Mr. Super,
Wow you have endorsed...
Thank you.
Posted by: Will | May 09, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Another thing: Mr. Espinoza, I just read in the NYTimes that you have come out in favor of Barack Obama; is this true? Apparently Obama's campaign released a statement to that effect earlier today.
Posted by: Walker | May 09, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Joe, you guys have to take your Obama glasses off. It is going to ruin your objectivity, which would lose him the General Election. I guarantee you the crack at age was taken by 50% of the country as a real swipe. The talk by Obama supporters saying "we don't need this or this one or that one" is a very bad sign for McCain v. Obama. Obama has made some serious blunders (himself, not some conspiracy to make him look bad).
Obama could have easily responded to the Hamas comment (which btw is just a statement of fact) in a way to turn it to his advantage. Something like:
“The comments from Hamas are a very positive sign as past presidents have entered negotiations at a disadvantage with the Palestinian people. This displays that Hamas wants to move from a terrorist force to a diplomatic force. It seems like only yesterday that Egypt was the mortal enemy of Israel, before Sadat changed from the Middle East military leader to diplomatic visionary. Had Carter not taken that moment in time, Egypt might still be engaging in fruitless wars with Israel. Had Clinton not taken the chance to capitalize on the Oslo Accords, we might not have reached the view today that Hamas might be seen as a possible solution to the problem. In both cases, it was the Israeli/Palestinian that made the initial moves towards peace. I believe that is what we are witnessing here. Those elusive moments in time.
When I meet with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Hamas will have to be at the negotiating table. At that time I will remind Hamas that they preferred me to be the American representative, so they would be unwise not to seize this moment in time. I believe this will give me leverage with Hamas. I think you would be hard pressed to locate an average Israeli or Palestinian citizen that does not truly want peace.”
Then he could get a FACTUAL swipe at McCain with “How do you think the Palestinian people will view a President that claims to be their current party majority’s worst enemy? It takes both parties of the disagreement to be at the table to create a valid treaty.”
Instead he took a cheap swipe back at McCain. Barack has created a mythical perception about himself, which he is damaging by not giving depth to his positions. He needed to back Carter before and upon his return.
Obama needs to stop belittling the Clinton legacy, which most unbiased people know was positive for all classes and races of America. My mention of Clinton – Oslo I think would start the return of the Clinton base. It also sets up the last two Democratic Presidents as the foreign relations experts where Israel is concerned. Instead he names recent great Democratic Presidents and leaves Bill off the list. That is petty and what is really dividing the party.
Next, Obama just had a spokesman belittle Puerto Rico. Obama is doing everything wrong lately. Winning the far left and black vote might be enough in the primaries, but not enough in the General Election. State otherwise at your own peril. I’ve gone on Republican blog hang-outs and if you think this race is difficult, wait until the actual race.
Posted by: Truth | May 10, 2008 at 07:05 AM
Mr. Truth: Sounds like you've been drinking the Clinton Kool-Aid a little too long. You seem to have missed Obama's statements that he would not negotiate with Hamas and that he condemned Carter's trip. In addition, you make wild accusations that Obama is deputizing surrogates to go negative. Citing proof is one thing--making wild accusations is nonsense.
Posted by: LindaS | May 10, 2008 at 11:07 AM
LindaS: Mr. Truth: Sounds like you've been drinking the Clinton Kool-Aid a little too long. You seem to have missed Obama's statements that he would not negotiate with Hamas and that he condemned Carter's trip.
You seem to have missed the contradiction of Hamas with MEND wanting to accept Obama’s cease-fire. Obama’s comments on Carter-Hamas was “As I said before I think it was a bad idea for president Carter to meet with Hamas without having recognized Israel or denounced terrorism or acknowledged previous agreements given that they are not heads of state.” That is Bush diplomacy. It is on par with telling North Korea they need to stop their nuclear program (before we can sit down to talk about stopping their nuclear program). It is self-defeating logic. Sadat did not say he will recognize Israel’s right to exist and then negotiate. This is exactly the opposite of what Obama promised. You can attack Carter on quite a few things, but diplomacy is not one of them. I could call it what it was: pandering.
LindaS: In addition, you make wild accusations that Obama is deputizing surrogates to go negative. Citing proof is one thing--making wild accusations is nonsense.
Actually, I’ve accused Obama of beginning the negative talk himself with Bush/Cheney-lite in 2007. But yes, he had to fire a surrogate because they have had talks with Hamas. Are you suggesting Obama’s surrogates are running wild? Let’s stop pretending. Or should I say, put down the Kool-Aid. Oh yeah!!!!
The funny thing is I’m trying very hard to find a reason to vote for Obama in November, and all I can come up with is I’m voting against McCain. Sounds like 2004 all over again. How did that turn out?
I'm practically handing out things Clinton supporters (being one) are looking for to make that jump. Meanwhile, Obama supporters just call her a witch, further dividing the party. I like the generalities of Obama, but I don't like the lack of detail or actions that defy his own generalities.
Posted by: Truth | May 10, 2008 at 03:15 PM
You have a point, Truth. I forget that people take statements according to their mood, so what's heard in a good mood won't sound the same when someone's in a bad one.
You're right, though, there's no point in attacking Clinton; I'm willing to bite my tongue if need be.
What do you see as ways Obama supporters can reach out to Clinton supporters without ticking them off? I obviously can't do anything about the main campaign itself.
Posted by: Joe | May 10, 2008 at 07:30 PM