Superdelegates Caved in to Obama: Why Do We Need Them? They Served No Purpose At All
Turning on the TV tonight to watch the first returns from South Dakota and Montana, I was immediately struck and somewhat shocked that a number of superdelegates couldn't wait for the news that might have given them pause to consider what they'd done.
By bagging twenty-six or so of their group, the Obama campaign was able to claim that with only a few additional votes, which he was sure to win in either South Dakota or Montana, he would now be over the 2,118 total to win the Democratic Nomination.
Except that prior to this evening many had predicted that the South Dakota/Montana results would leave him still short of the nomination, and that only after winning those states would the superdelegates rally behind him either late Tuesday night or by Wednesday or Thursday.
This, no doubt because he was predicted to win both states big. Indeed, even I did so in a column written from South Dakota two weeks ago indicating he was sure to prevail, because Hillary had run no TV ads in the two weeks I was visiting there and also in Montana, whereas Obama's message aired almost every few minutes in both states.
So, what happened? Perhaps in the two weeks since I left she somehow blitzed the airwaves and organized a flurry of activity on her behalf. News of her surge indicating that something was awry in South Dakota must have made its way to the Obama hierarchy, which might have hurriedly telephoned the most likely superdelegates who were on the fence. It's now or never, they may have implored, perhaps never giving up the news that somehow she was about to pull off an eleven point landslide victory in South Dakota. A state Obama was expected to win by a huge margin -- and on top of her more than two to one victory in Puerto Rico on Sunday. The Obama forces needed to head them off at the pass and neutralize the possibility that some of these expert folks might have had second thoughts and reconsidered how well Hillary had done. So, the Obama honchos might have warned that if they didn't come forward now there'd be no special VIP tickets at the convention or the hoped for Inaugural Ball.
Ultimately, Montana voted for Obama by about fifteen points, but unlike South Dakota which was a purely Democratic Primary, Montana's balloting was open to all comers. And a Democratic primary victory where Republicans can vote, I always find suspect.
Meanwhile, when word came of the twenty-six superdelegates in Obama's camp the pundits on CNN were beside themselves and couldn't wait to anoint Obama. Even in spite of the fact that with all the dismissive reports of Hillary's candidacy since March she has won more primaries in bigger states and in a manner that should have made the super delegates seriously question whether the Obama phenomenon was simply that. A manufactured one, built on tenuous victories, many in caucuses in small normally Republican voting states. In fact, CNN's David Gergen admitted that Hillary had won Phase Two of the Primary season, and history has shown us that as it becomes clearer who the nominee will be, those who are not succeeding tend to fade out. They don't continue to eclipse the front runner!
CNN even had the cheek to announce Obama's victory in Montana almost immediately, whereas it took almost an hour for them to declare South Dakota for Clinton, even though her lead stayed approximately the same from the very beginning. And it had the audacity to put his Montana success in almost twice the font size on top of the words announcing her triumph in South Dakota. What kind of fair and balanced reporting is that? Oh, excuse me, those words are normally attributed to the Fox News Channel.
What does all this say? Is this news or is it cheer leading in fact promoting the candidacy of someone it has been promoting all along? No wonder Hillary Clinton refused to concede defeat. Why should she, considering her continuing wins and the upset she pulled in South Dakota, though massively outspent there as she was in West Virginia and other states where she trounced Obama soundly.
Now this may all be too little too late, but it's a statement of the lemming-like mentality of the newscasters, pundits and even the so-called expert superdelegates who, in my view, did not look at the big picture and did not pay proper attention to the huge totals in varied states Hillary amassed all the way to the end, even as the Media put her campaign on life support. Imagine how she would have done and would do in November with their full encouragement?
If the superdelegates had any cajones they'd be calling each other tonight and say, What have we done? There's still time to set this thing right. But they probably won't, because even worse than being wrong they hate to admit they don't know what they're doing.
The big question is will Obama manage to pull it off? I hope so, but if these political masters are the ones behind him it is troubling to even conceive how he will do against the ruthless types who somehow wrested the presidency in 2000 from the rightful winner who got the most votes.
God help us all -- even if we're not religious!
Loading comments…
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
HAHAHA!!! Stop - you are KILLING me!!
David Gergen's "second phase" super-genius theory trumps the DNC rules?! OMFG.... that is just hilarious.
a post full of conveniently overlooked contradictions:
"the so-called expert superdeleg
How many SDs had pledged support to HRC before any voting had even occurred? Only Obama's SDs...fair enough and of sound reasoning I assume.
Next, Montana...
"And a Democratic primary victory where Republicans can vote, I always find suspect."
yet the author goes on to praise Hillary's victories in big states which I assume includes PA, OH, and TX* all of which had tangible evidence being investigated by state and federal authorities of the Rush Limbaugh effect...n
What I've seen is that the media have been more than ratings-hungry enablers in keeping Hillary's campaign more than alive...wa
Where has the author been hiding? How has Obama, the long-time underdog and political outsider become the inside party hack to this author? It's as though he followed the campaign from hillarycli
"he was predicted to win both states big."
Every poll I saw predicted a close race in South Dakota. Both campaigns said it would be close. What polls were you looking at?
"her more than two to one victory in Puerto Rico"
All due respect to Clinton and to that fine island, that doesn't mean much. They don't get to vote in the general election.
"the Obama honchos might have warned that if they didn't come forward now there'd be no special VIP tickets at the convention or the hoped for Inaugural Ball."
And the Clintons didn't make any offers or pressure superdelegates? Give me a break.
"a Democratic primary victory where Republicans can vote, I always find suspect."
Or, it could be another indicator of Obama's appeal to independents and moderates, which will be crucial in the general election. An appeal that Clinton decidedly lacks, by the way.
"Hillary Clinton refused to concede defeat. Why should she, "
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because she lost according to the rules she agreed to abide by? Just a thought.
"whether the Obama phenomenon was ... built on tenuous victories ... in small normally Republican voting states."
"considering ... the upset she pulled in South Dakota"
Let me see if I have this straight. If Obama wins in a normally Republican voting state, too much is being made of that. But if Clinton wins in a normally Republican voting state, not enough is being made of that. Got it.
Oh Jesus Christ on a pogostick. There's nothing to debate. It's like the GOP and tax cuts - any economic situation calls for a tax cut. So is the mindset of the Clinton zombie; any situation simply proves that the country has been fooled and the only possible savior is Hillary.
So sad, too bad, she lost. Vote McCain or vote Obama - either way STFU.
The democrats will be in the White House in '09 - but the Clintons won't. :-)
Stop crying!
I'm sick of it. I have been one of most moderate of Obama supporters, continually calling on others of my persuasion to exercise moderation and tolerance toward the Clinton supporters.
Well, no more.
I have never seen such a sense of entitlement with no reason. I have never been so ashamed by my own gender. I have never been so outraged that people like you and Hillary presume to speak for me simply because I'm white, a female, and hard working. Regardless of what happens this presidential cycle, if she thinks for one minute that I will ever support her in anything political ever again, she is sadly mistaken. In fact, I will work my hardest to make sure that she never gets out of another primary fight with a win. I had every confidence, and told everyone I knew, that Hillary would do the right thing last night and be an awesome force in bringing our party back together. Fool once, shame on you. She won't get a chance to fool me again. I have no interest in your or Senator Clinton's politics of female resentment. That is what you are pushing and it's a bankrupt type of politics. Any woman (or man) who falls for it is stupid, immature, and shallow. I prefer the politics of realism and to act like an adult, not a spoiled kindergartener who finds that he/she cannot bully the rest of the class like a younger brother or sister. Grow up.
A point lost on the writer. Obama basically gave up campaigning in the final weeks of the Democratic primaries for two important reasons; a) to campaign nationally, and b) to give Clinton the time and space to bow out gracefully. This allowed Clinton to score some late victories more than anything. This race was a forgone conclusion back in March. The narrative was the only one who wouldn't accept the reality of the situation was Hillary Clinton. Now it appears we can add the name Russnow to the list of the delusional and afraid to pull their heads out of the kool-aid trough.
Is there no end to the amount Clinton supporters will whine and cry about this outcome? He won, and he won by the rules. Give the guy a break already.
Go Ahead! I Dare Ya! Take this nomination away from him --- You may not think he can win in Novemeber but if they were to take this from him today or in August-- I would bet 1 years salary that the Democrats will lose in November.
The uproar would tear the roof off this country.
So you don't care if he can actually win in Nov. Just as long as Obamaloons can kiss his ass for another few months, right? LOFL, There is going to be a huge run on Anti depressants come Nov.
Yes we care. That's why we support Obama. Why are you so spiteful? You've never oiffered a reasoned explanation as to how Obama would lose to McCain.
Yes, I do care that he CAN actually win in Nov. Just like Hillary could if she were the nominee. However, she's NOT the nominee, and therefore it's time to open your brain up, shake loose some of those cobwebs, and realize that just because I like MY choice of candidate doesn't mean that I'm an idiot. Just like it doesn't mean that just because you like YOUR choice of candidate doesn't make you an idiot. Your ACTIONS, and your WORDS are what's proving that you haven't been thinking!
Is this guy for real?? A network isn't calling an election for someone because they favor them. The reason it took over an hour to call SD was because they combine initial polls, returns, and exit polls in order to determine who will win. They use mathematical formulas combining these numbers to predict the winner before every vote is actually counted. Use some common sense here. When they say too "early" to call it means that not enough returns are in to combine with the polling data. Too "close" to call means between the returns & the polling the numbers are within a margin of error so they're unable to predict. SD took an hour because polls said one thing & returns said another. So it took a while to finally swing for Hillary. Obama had both the polls and early returns going his direction (although they didn't need any returns to make the call because of overwhelming poll numbers for Obama). How is someone like this a contributor to Huffington Post?? As much as I like this site, it makes me seriously question the legitimacy of their jounalists.
See Michael Russnow's Profile
HuffPost's Pick
In fact, Hillary was ahead by twelve points from the beginning of the CNN coverage (approximately 9%) and held that for most of the evening ending up with an almost equal eleven point spread.
Regarding the majority of comments, I sympathize with your support of Obama and will work hard to get him elected.
But most of you conveniently ignore what I have been warning against, and that is that Hillary has won the preponderance of recent contests (some by large margins and some in big states) even when it was "clear" that Obama was going to win.
Why didn't supporters abandon her as they usually do when a candidate fades? Why didn't they jump on the Obama bandwagon?
If he is to win (and I hope he does now) his campaign has a lot of work to do and cannot simply rest on the laurels of the huge crowds he draws at sports arenas.
Just remember what happened to war hero John Kerry against a draft dodger Vice President and a president who barely served in the military. All I ask is that you be wary and not be overly giddy about the prospects.
Criticize me and others who disagree with you -- even strongly -- but your cases are made stronger when you do so respectfully and don't disregard the facts of what I have been saying.
I think if you look back at the primaries you can see when things shifted for Ms. Clinton.
It might have been missed by many of the Clinton supporters and was not used by the Obama campaign.
Ms. Clinton's comments after the completion of the SC primary, "Hard Working Americans, White AMericans" was the turning point in the election. You can map the Super Delegates to that point and it is when her campaign was officially over.
Please Read:
Highlight the Words
"She has unleashed the gates of hell," a longtime party leader told me. "She's saying, 'He's not one of us.'"
http://ess
I'm sure most Clinton supporters do not understand why the Party feared what her next statement would be after she made that statement.
We're not conveniently ignoring it. Most of us have made these same arguments for weeks and frankly I am tired of it. You are coming around after the battle and bayoneting the wounded. You really seem like a sore loser and an article like yours only fans the flames that will keep our party from uniting.
The front runner isn't going to win every state. That is why we have primaries and caucuses in every state, not just the big ones or swing states or blue states. Everyone has a voice and the right to vote. The winner needs x number of delegates. He/she doesn't need 3/4 majority, or a number of landslides after a certain date.
continued.
You are suggesting that Obama has failed to win by a certain threshold that you have created. The fallacy of your argument is that you are suggesting that since he didn't do well enough, we should reward the runner up who did even worse. Hillary fought with her back to wall the past 2 months and used tactics such as race baiting and fear mongering that only someone in a political "life or death" would use. Two major missteps also helped her. 1 was "nafta-gate" (which her campaign was ALSO guilty of) which severely hurt him in TX and Ohio, and the other was "bittergate" which is no ones fault but his own.
Bottom line is they both fought hard, their supporters came out in record numbers, but he now has the magic number of delegates. It is time to get united and concentrate on taking back the Whitehouse.
"Why didn't supporters abandon her as they usually do when a candidate fades? Why didn't they jump on the Obama bandwagon?"
Possibly because they don't know him well. But come November, they will know him very well, and they will be pleased.
Great blog and great post. YOu speak the truth and instead of Obama supporters actually reading and comprehending what you are saying, they'll just attack you. Instead of addressing real concerns, they simply want to cheerlead him and attack HRC and her supporters. I guess the old saying is true about Dem's forming a circular firing squad. God help us is right, keep up the fight.
"Caved In"? Just the opposite is true. The race has been over since March. The Media is responsible for dragging this thing out for a long as it has taken. HRC's ego was a nice compliment to the MSM. Throughout the campaign, Obama strategically rolled out the supers and last night was no different.
If it was over, then why did she win more states, more delegates and much more voters since March?
Jesus Christ this argument has been made a hundred times in a hundred places, including my comment above. If it was NOT over, why couldn't she win? Give it a rest.
You don't seem to get it. That's a bad thing. This is why we wanted her to drop out. We knew, because of math, she could not catch him. She did well, better than him, but still fell short as predicted. The only thing she accomplished was weakening the nominee.
Why couldn't she close the deal?
Because Obama recognized that the race was over, and focused enough of his attention on McBush to stop him from getting too far ahead, and this resulted in Hillary being able to win some that she couldn't have won otherwise!
How ironic is all the whining from Clinton supporters about the super-delegate system! Obama played no role in creating it, he just played by the rules. It was big-time Clinton operative Harold Ickes who more than anyone is responsible for the system. When the Clintonistas were ahead and getting endorsements from the supers, they loved the system!
Yeah, especially because until they lost using the superdelegates, they were counting on them and pointing out how it didn't matter that they were losing in supers, since they could change their vote!
Caved???? Puh-leeeeze
Obama won in both pledged delegates and popular votes (despite Sen. Clinton's claims) and the Superdelegates should have overturned this? If you actually believe she'd be electable after that, you are fooling yourself.
He won the real POPULAR vote, he won the most PLEDGED Delegates and the people have spoken....
But we need to make sure that she leaves OUR toys behind!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
