No, I'm not talking about the daily Bush/McCain festival of fear about the scary terrorists. And, no, I'm not talking about the 3 AM phone call ad, either.
I'm talking about how many people I know, many superdelegates among them, who are scared to publicly support Obama because of the Clintons' well-known penchant for vengeance.
There are plenty of people in the Democratic Party who think Hillary Clinton would make a better president, and/or a better general election candidate, than Barack Obama. There are also some folks who endorsed Hillary early on, and believe you have to stick with the candidate you endorse until the bitter end. There are even a few, although the number is shrinking daily, who still have not genuinely made up their mind. And some superdelegates in the remaining states want to wait for the voters in their own state to vote before they declare. But there are very few people I talk to who think Hillary can win without an utterly divisive fight that will likely tear the party apart. They know that from the perspective of what's best for the party, it's time to endorse Obama.
What those remaining undeclared folks are telling me in private, though, is that they hope the race will play itself out and Obama will emerge as the clear winner so that they don't have to piss the Clintons and their machine off. They don't want the Clintons and McAuliffe and those donors who signed the letter to stop raising money for them. They don't want Carville and Wolfson to call them a traitor. They don't want all the behind-the-scenes trashing that they know will come.
I am encouraging my friends to come out of their political closet. If all the superdelegates and other influential friends that I have talked to who believe that the best path for the party is for Obama to win a clear victory would come out in is favor, this thing really would be over.
I hope this doesn't start another big flame war -- I almost didn't write it because I am so tired of people attacking each other over this primary race. But I thought it was important for people to know what I'm hearing from people.
Cross-posted at OpenLeft.com
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
All of these posts about the Clinton machine are only a precursor to what her presidency would be like
for this country. Gridlock and mudslinging paybacks.
Same old tired Washington politics ... Just what we need now.
SDs are big girls and boys who can handle themselves. This article is irrelavent.
I agree totally Abbie. The superdelegates will do the right thing at the proper time provided the price is right.
So Superdelegates are just whuzzes who are afraid of one candidate? If that is true, then all I can say is "What a bunch of losers" and "you don't deserve to hold any office at all"
I am sick and tired of reading how Obama has 50 Superdelegates in his pocket, just about to step into the limelight any minute.
I am sick and tired of pundits telling me that the race is already over and Clinton has to step down.
I am sick and tired of hearing only about Clinton's shortcomings and Obama's achievements when I know that she has achivements as well and he has serious flaws as well.
I am sick and tired of people telling me that they once supported Clinton, but now they are seeing the light.
I want a Democrat winning the White House. This can only be a Democrat who has a Democratic agenda (universal health care, fight against poverty, helping the Unions, Education, etc.).
This can only be a fighter. This can only be someone who managed to win the blue states in the primaries.
It can not be a Liberal who is constantly lying about his spiritual leader.
This can not be a candidate how arrogantly bases his frontrunner status on winning deep red states.
This can not be a greenhorn with little experience, but lots of skeletons in his closet.
I am so sick of the "do nothing" Democrats. The two party system doesn't work. It's all about obtaining or staying in power and NEVER about doing what's right or necessary.if there really were "patriots" in power in DC, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of the PNAC crowd would be in jail and Bush would be standing for impeachment proceedings. All as we head toward another gilded age as so called Democrats who work the system along with the republicans and swallow money from industry.----------------------Until Bill Clinton and his horrendous shift toward the right, I was proud to be a Democrat. There are very few true liberal Democrats left. they don't even use the word...it's always "progressive". Really is a shame what has happened to this country and what i want my party to be.--------
Mike Lux
You spin a Tale of Fear.... about the badness of using Fear... LMAO... Either you are consciously spreading, "Fear the Clinton's", or you are un-consciously doing that which you accuse the Clinton's of being wrong for doing... Either way same effect...
OMG, don't put evil, vengeful Hillary into office... (Mike Lux) "I almost didn't write it because I am so tired of people attacking each other over this primary race." That's why you wrote an Attack Article about evil Clinton's and their Machine? snickering.... Yeah, Right! Do you hide and wear disguises every day? OMG, you're so much more courageous than your delegate friends..
(Mike Lux) "They don't want the Clintons and McAuliffe and those donors who signed the letter to stop raising money for them. They don't want Carville and Wolfson to call them a traitor. They don't want all the behind-the-scenes trashing that they know will come." So, Barack raises money for Clinton supporters? Your Delegate friends put Money ahead of Integrity?
(Mike Lux) "I am encouraging my friends to come out of their political closet. If all the superdelegates and other influential friends that I have talked to who believe that the best path for the party is for Obama to win a clear victory would come out in is favor, this thing really would be over." Seems obvious they've chosen.... So you manipulate them, by calling them Cowards... Perhaps it's saying NO to you, they more fear?
I hope you understand that Obama is a part of that power structure. He had a " king maker" in Illinois... a long time, entrenched Chicago pol who decided to make him "king" by taking bills and legislation that others had been working on for quite some time and then throwing it to Obama when it was ready to be passed in the last year of his state senator term.(go to the black commentator to read more about this. I can't remember the names etc.) Before that he didn't pass anything and many of the black legislators who had their projects yanked away and given to Obama are pissed off.
Anyway, I don't hold it against him, I'm not criticizing him, he wants to succeed, he decided what he wanted and he went after it as they all do. Unfortunately this is the way it works for most of them.
Sen Obama has yet to gather the needed delegates to win the nomination, an often overlooked minor detail. The Obama campaign and it's supporters are calling for her to drop out. Does the Obama camp worry that he will be unable to convince Clinton supports to rethink their choice with merely his words alone ? If the only way Sen Obama can secure the nomination is to bully his opponent out of the race, maybe he isn't the one for the job. Half the Democratic Party feels comfortable and confident in Sen Clintons qualifications and abilities. The best giggle of all is the notion that she will 'knee-cap' or 'strong-arm' him for the nomination. If that was an option why would she not have already done this dastardly deed? Clinton supporters have enough game to allow the competition to finish, and I wish the same was true for the Obama group. Her tenacity, enduring perserverance, and ability to face the most ugly of critisim (often emotional not intellectual) make her even more the person we need to lead. Sorry folks, but . . . if you can't run with the big dogs then stay on the porch!
Bill Clinton had not gathered the needed number of delegates to win the nomination before the other nominees droppged out. Neither had John Kerry. Neither had most of the candidates who went on to be their party's nominee. I notice that Clinton supporters are about as rational as she is.
Stop lying. The Obama campaign has not called for Hillary to drop. They have no need to because Obama is trouncing her so badly that she has been brought to tears in this campaign. The longer Hillary stays in the race, the more nasty and hallucinatory she becomes. Next thing you know she'll be pretending to have returned sniper fire in Bosnia with the pistola she keeps in her purse.
Heru,
Have you just awoken from a coma? There's not a day that goes by when some Obama supporter isn't calling for Hillary to quit. As far as Obama trouncing her, I would hardly call a 150 delegate lead a trouncing especially with the number of states yet to cast their ballots. And I'm tired of all this BS about her being nasty and playing dirty. She doesn't have to, not when you have Obama sticking his foot in his mouth with the likes of Rev. Wright, Susan Power, the Canadian NAFTA fiasco and now back tracking on when or how he'll get the troops out of Iraq. The list goes on but you get the idea. So let's put to rest once and for all this talk of Hillary quiting and that she plays dirty.
I couldn't agree more Fergie 13. Mr. Lux comments indicate the superdelegates are afraid to commit for fear of reprisal from the Clinton camp. Considering a number of primaries remaining, Isn't it conceivable that since there's no clear cut winner at this point, that these superdelegates are demonstrating integrity in preserving the democratic process? Adversely, wouldn't the candidates themselves be doing an injustice to the people who haven't cast their vote as yet, to drop out, denying their voices to be heard? Bill Richardson, a superdelegate and supporter of Obama, whose state was won by Hillary, has advocated that she should quit, isn't this in direct opposition to the voters of his state? How creditable is his voice? The bottom line is this; let the process take care of itself without all of this nonsense of having either candidate quit and delievering the nomination by forfeit circumventing the will of the people.
it is high raking democrats asking her to bow out for the sake of the democratic party-------------it's obvious she is not a team player but rather a self-serving nominee who cares only about the clinton legacy rather than the party.if she were true blue she would get out with dignity and lead the charge for the party by being bo's #1 supporter.---------------by doing this it would lock her in as the next gov. of ny.
While Democrats choose their Candidate, the Old Guard is willing to throw the Election to the Republicans, to try and stay in Control... Isn't that the essence of why the House and Senate have caved to the Bush Administration, over and over? Why the Invasion/ Occupation keeps rolling tragically along... Impeachment is off the Table...
Old Guard first... Control second... Voters third, or is that to high for voters?
The Division, IMHO, existed before this Election... The real Divide is between the Old Guard and Clinton supporters... There is an underlying Control struggle going on... If they are truly endorsing Barack, it is because they can NOT push Hillary the Fighter around so easily... I doubt they are endorsing Barack, but more attempting to make a grab for Control over the Democratic Party and the $$$$$ they can receive... The core/ base of the Party, both the Democratic and Republican branches, is all about Corporate$$$$ and spending our money to get them re-elected...
It is not high ranking Dems but, high ranking Obama supporters . You misconstrued the info to your advantage. According to your thoughts the Giants would have never played the Patriots because they were the obvious winners . . . OH SO WRONG!!! Team player . . .what would that be? These folks are both in the game to win, hopefully because they each think they have something of importance to give to our country.
According to your rules the Patriots would have gotten the trophy after the Giants won the game. One of these candidates has already won the,most states, more votes, more pledged delegates. The other one has a lot of wealthy donors and a lot of irate supporters who can't figure out they already lost. The ONLY way Hillary Clinton can win is if she convinces the superdelegates to overturn the people. If the superdelegates takes the 30 states and the millions of enthusiastic supporters and the money raised by MILLIONS of Americans and not just wealthy fat cats and chuck them out the window and crown Hillary. Her actions are NO BETTER then Bush in 2000, she's just trying to get SELECTED by different means.
High ranking Dem's...high ranking Obama supporters...Aren't they one in the same Fergie?
I keep thinking about that too. Why are the supporters screaming for her to quit? If they are so confident of their ability then it would seem they should just do their best and fight McCain, I think they both should actually.
I do wonder sometimes if Hillary is staying in because she knows something big that could come out about Obama so she is waiting it out. I hope not, but we'll see I guess.
If there was something big that Hillary Clinton knew about Obama...we'd all know it by now. If she knew something even semi-negative about Obama, she'd twist it into something much worse and we'd know it immediately. I will not vote for that woman. I will not support her. If she is the Democratic candidate, this will be a year that I will not vote. That is sad to say, but I can not vote for someone like her.
There you have it - what will stop the Clinton supporters going to McCain, you ask? If this is the sentiment, then it is true - Clinton and McCain are closer together on issues than Obama. It is abundantly clear that Senator Obama has the pledged delegates and more superdelagates coming his way to secure his leadership position. Why? He is running an effective campaign that speaks to millions of Americans. He earned his success the old fashioned way - he earned it with dignity, honesty, and integrity. The same cannot be said for Senator Clinton and company if you are paying attention to reality. The real problem is that supporters of both Clinton and Obama are funding the infighting for the nomination. I have given all I can and will unlikely be able to send more monetary support once Senator Obama is nominated. It is a shame at this late stage that many small donors have spent money on the fight between the democrats instead of against the Corporate Theocracy party which McCain represents.
I don't see BO struggling with HRC's "tenancity". In fact he is handling it quite well as his vote total, delegate lead, money raised (record amounts at an avg of 109 per head) , and recent polls seem to indicate. I am not 100% sure but if HRC had the lead, I would be willing to bet she would be asking BO to drop out too. Who wouldn't.
Or it could be that BO wants HRC to drop out so that he can start the general election process. Don't you think HRC would want the same. You seem to insinuate that BO can't handle the HRC "tenacity." It seems to me he has handled their stuff quite well. He has been cool as a cucumber in debates and on TV. It appears that the majority of the public agrees to as his vote totals, massive amounts of money raised at a low 109 per head, and the latest polls. Ya, it seems like he is doing just fine.
Oh, I wasn't aware that the definition of tenacity was lies, exagerations, obfuscations, and Rovian attacks...
Thank you for your information
Well wouldn't that be convienent for Sen. Obama if Hillary dropped out now before the rest of the country voted to decide who they want as their candidate. At this point if either candidate were to concede, this would be a grave injustice to those who've voiced their opinion or to those yet to vote. Since there isn't a clear cut choice of the people and neither candidate has the necessary delegates to secure the nomination, the only logical decision is to let the contest continue all the way to the convention.
Why are Clinton and her followers trying to portray this "injustice"? Usually most of the people bow out after Super Tuesday...or at least after the numbers don't add up for them. I live in Texas and our primary is so late that this is the first in my adult life that the nominee was not chosen...was that "injustice" in the past. NO! ONLY WHEN A CLINTON DOESN'T GET THEIR WAY IS IT CONSIDERED INJUSTICE!
The superdelegates at this point SHOULD stay on the sidelines - unless of course they have a strong feeling for one candidate or another (this is what the BO camp was asking them to do back in February), which of course if they did they would have already outed themselves by now.
All this lame stuff about "Clinton vengeance" is nonsense - why be afraid of the Clintons if you are on the side of the new President. Most of the superdelegates are big boys or girls and they've been in the ring before. It's just comments to heat up the passions against the Clintons or maybe, Mike Lux is afraid of the Judas-30 silver label.
You obviously haven't been involved with politicians with a hard-on for those who oppose them. The Clintons are bad news - those that know them, or crossed them, know what they are capable of.
really?
would that be you? You sound like an expert... if not you do you think you can post some links with proof of your allegations?
Mike is just reporting what the superdelegates are telling him. Jeez, read the article.
Let's cast a little light on the Superdelegates, shall we? From today's McLatchey.com:
And if that's the case, it's good news for Obama. Since 2005, his PAC has donated $710,900 to superdelegates, more than three times as much as Clinton's PAC has. Her PAC distributed $236,100 to superdelegates during the three-year period.
The study found that the presidential candidate who gave more money to the superdelegates received their endorsements 82 percent of the time. That's based on a review of elected officials who are serving as superdelegates and who'd endorsed a candidate as of Feb. 25.
In cases where superdelegates received money from Obama's Hope Fund but none from Clinton's PAC, Obama got the superdelegates' support 85 percent of the time.
1. Although Clinton's PAC's donated less, they instead did appearances at fund raisers (some speaking engagements they were paid to do) Direct cash? Or scrounge for their time? Makes sense why they'd flip when an alternative is available.
2. And 75% of superdelegates supported Clinton to Obama's 82%. Small difference.
Neither will win against McCain as it stands right now no matter what the polls say. Very poor leadership from the DNC in all of this.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/31905.html
7% of around 400 superdelegates is a small difference while 1.4% of the popular vote is a chasm? Another example of Obama doublespeak.
However, your larger point about the DNC is well taken. Additionally, the super D's are not exactly behaving like paragons of virtue and leadership and given the dynamics with the PACs, Carville's diatribe takes on new meaning.
So you are dismissing Obama's majority of nearly 800,000 in the popular vote? What the hell are you Clinton supporters thinking?
1.4% of the popular vote is not a chasm - so if others have posted that and angered you, allow me to post otherwise.
The upcoming states will affect that percentage no matter what spin from either camp is put out there.
Lisakaz,
If you're reading, I address your remarks way at the back last page of the comments. Yes, okay. The delegates wished to remain anonymous. But what were the vague "threats" that they felt the Clintons were empowered to impose? Let's assume it was something more substantial than being removed from their Christmas card list.
Various Clinton donors threatened to withdrawl their financial support from unnamed House Dems seeking reelection if Pelosi didn't cease her suggestions that Hilliary step aside. That kind of "threat" is at least specific.
It's this nebulous, eerie "what-will-they-do?" with background music that I think is a bit over the top.
LIke I said, I'm not a fan. I just make the comment. Meanwhile, answering ron071 as to why I could vote (agast!) vote Bush twice? Easy. The reasons are Gore and Kerry.
Sometimes one votes against as much as for. I could argue that ron071 is "brave" to admit that Mr. Save the Planet was ever a viable candidate. What would his response to Iraq have been? Perhaps a rock concert....
Another commentary expressing ignorance in the way it is in the real world in politics. I can see the kind of people Hillary attracts and why Hillary's BS can register with some of you.
HeadScratcher, You're vision's a little blurry today. Actually I'm a Reagan Republican. Absolutely no way, I'd ever vote for Hillary not during Hell's biggest deep freeze. Loathed the husband and don't like the wife any better.
All I was saying was: make specific criticisms not the vague amorphous ones.
Posted March 28, 2008 | 06:09 PM (EST)