New Page 1


   
 Friday, May 16, 2008

Florida, Michigan delegates cannot save Clinton

  From Associated Press. Read here


By

NEDRA PICKLER

Sorry, Sen. Clinton.

Michigan and Florida can't save your campaign.

Interviews with those considering how to handle the two states' banished convention delegates found little interest in the former first lady's best-case scenario.

Her position, part of a formidable comeback challenge, is that all the delegates be seated in accordance with their disputed primaries.

And even if they were, it wouldn't erase Barack Obama's growing lead in delegates over Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, a 30-member panel charged with interpreting and enforcing party rules, is scheduled to meet May 31 to consider how to handle Michigan and Florida's 366 delegates.

Last year, the panel imposed the harshest punishment it could render against the two states after they scheduled primaries in January, even though they were instructed not to vote until Feb. 5 or later. Michigan and Florida lost all their delegates to the national convention, and all the Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign in the two states, stripping them of all the influence they were trying to build by voting early.

But now there is agreement on all sides that at least some of the delegates should be restored in a gesture of party unity and respect to voters in two general election battlegrounds.

Clinton has been arguing for full reinstatement, which would boost her standing. She won both states, even though they didn't count toward the nomination and neither candidate campaigned in them. Obama even had his name pulled from Michigan's ballot.

The Associated Press interviewed a third of the panel members and several other Democrats involved in the negotiations and found widespread agreement that the states must be punished for stepping out of line. If not, many members say, other states will do the same thing in four years.

"We certainly want to be fair to both candidates, and we want to be sure that we are fair to the 48 states who abided by the rules," said Democratic National Committee Secretary Alice Germond, a panel member unaligned with either candidate. "We don't want absolute chaos for 2012.

"We want to reach out to Michigan and Florida and seat some group of delegates in some manner, at least most of us do. These are two critical states for the general (election) and the voters of those states who were not the people who caused this awful conundrum to occur deserve our attention and deserve to be a part of our process and deserve to be at the convention," she said.

Just as Democrats across the country have been divided over which candidate would make the better nominee, most of the panel members also bring personal preferences and political allegiances to the table.

Many are long-standing party officials with close ties to the Clintons. The former first lady has 13 members publicly supporting her, including campaign advisers Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy who are working to build her delegate count. Eight are openly aligned with Obama. Nine others are officially undeclared.

"We have to have delegates, and they have to be delegations that reflect the opinions of those two states," said former DNC Chairman Don Fowler, a committee member supporting Clinton. "How we get there is very different because everyone sees these questions of who it helps and who it hurts. I don't think the formulation has been found that will get around the piece at this point." But he said a solution is probably possible among the diverse interests.

Because Obama is in the lead for the nomination, his camp heads into the meeting in a position of strength. It is possible the Illinois senator could clinch the nomination by the time the panel meets if he picks up the pace of superdelegate endorsements in the next two weeks.

But Obama has such a lead that he may be able to afford to be generous and give Clinton most of the delegates. That would help put the issue behind them and help him build good will in Michigan and Florida heading into the November election.

Still, some of Obama's supporters think the fairest solution is to disregard the primary votes and split the delegations evenly between the two candidates.

"It has to be a fair process for both candidates," said member Yvonne Gates, an Obama supporter from Nevada who said she wasn't sure what position she would support at the meeting. "My definition is a 50-50 split is something that is fair. It cannot be a situation where you give one candidate more votes than the other. In my opinion that wasn't an election when they didn't have a chance to get out and talk to the people of that community."

It's also possible that any vote that recognizes the Michigan and Florida results would legitimize their elections. Clinton has been arguing that she leads in the popular vote, but that's only when both states are included and it is very slim — fewer than 5,000 votes out of 34 million cast.

Her accounting also doesn't include some caucus states that favored Obama and where the popular vote wasn't tallied. The measure of winning the nomination is not the popular vote but the delegate count, and Obama leads 1,898 to 1,718, with 2,026 needed for the nomination. Still, Clinton is trying to use the popular vote argument to win over some delegates.

So far, Obama's campaign has not been giving direction publicly or privately to panel members. The Clinton campaign's official position has been full reinstatement, but her advisers acknowledge they are considering an idea before the panel to seat the delegates with half a vote each. Clinton campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that they "certainly might" accept a compromise to seat half the delegates.

If their elections had been held according to party rules, Michigan and Florida would have allocated a total of 313 pledged delegates based on the outcome of the vote. Using the results of the January elections, Clinton would get 178 to Obama's 67, giving her a 111-vote advantage. As of Thursday, she was behind 180 delegates, so that would not catch her up even under that unlikely scenario.

The plans before the committee will be more generous to Obama. The Michigan Democratic Party has proposed giving 69 of its 128 delegates to Clinton and 59 to Obama, an advantage of 10 delegates for Clinton.

A proposal from Florida would halve its 185 delegates. From that, Clinton would get 52.5 and Obama 33.5, a 19-delegate advantage for Clinton.

"I think it's a reasonable solution to the problem that was created, and my hope is that we'll be able to get past this and move on," said Allan Katz, an Obama supporter who serves on the panel but won't be able to vote on any Florida solution because he is from the state.

The committee is not bound to select the proposals offered and has authority to reinstate any number of delegates and divide them in any way.

An open question is how to handle the other type of delegates each state lost — the superdelegates who are party leaders not bound by the outcome of the vote and are free to support whatever candidate they personally choose. Michigan has 28 superdelegates, and Florida 25. A total of eight have declared for Obama, seven for Clinton and the rest are undeclared.

Germond said she hopes the meeting will begin the process of unifying the party.

"Probably what we will come up with will not make everybody or anybody completely happy, which will mean that we did a good job," she said. "It is mighty unfortunate that at this point in our nominating process we are talking about people who did not abide by the process instead of talking about (beating Republican presidential candidate) John McCain."

  Go to Latest Posting


Comments 0


 
 

What's The Big Deal About Hillary's Win in West Virginia?

  Read here

Much has been made in the days since the West Virginia primary about the implications of Hillary Clinton’s overwhelming victory there. It has been used by the Clinton camp to prove that Barack Obama can’t get white, working-class votes and therefore makes Hillary the best candidate for the Democratic Party in November.

West Virginia is a mostly rural, mostly white, mostly female, mostly native-born, mostly poor, mostly less educated population, with at least a tinge of racism thrown into the mix.

West Virginia has a total population of about 1.8 million. The largest city, Charleston has about 53,000 residents. The population is 96% white and 51% female. Only about 1% of the state’s residents are foreign-born, ranking 50th out of 50 states.

On the economic front, West Virginia is third lowest in per capita income, ahead of only Arkansas and Mississippi. They rank last in median household income. The growth in GDP in West Virginia ranks 49th out of 50.

On education, West Virginia has the lowest percentage of people with a college degree in the country.

On the historical perspective, I don’t want to make any assertions about the people of West Virginia, but it must be included as part of the equation. Robert Byrd, a former member of the KKK has been a Senator from West Virginia since 1959 and in exit polling 20% of the voters cited race as an important factor in their choice between Clinton and Obama.

If there were a state where the numbers were reversed I suspect the margin of victory for Obama would be the same as Hillary’s was in West Virginia.

  Go to Latest Posting


Comments 0


   
 Thursday, May 15, 2008

Hillary's FALSE Argument to win the Democratic Nomination

  From eljefebob's page: Read here

In the "greatest political speech of all time", as Terry McAuliffe, her attack dog, laughingly termed it tonight, Hillary, for the umpteenth time, falsely claimed that because she won West Virginia, which is poorly educated and 94% white, she is the best candidate for president.

She continues to trail in every metric: popular vote, primaries won, pledged delegates, and now super delegates; she even has the highest negatives, almost as bad as GWB's. She's on TV right now claiming victory and continuing to assert she is winning the primary race that she's already lost.

She's like the aunt who continues to stay in the guest room long after she's worn out her welcome, stolen all the towels, and emptied the cupboards.

One of her primary arguments (no pun intended) is that she wins the big states and the swing states. McAuliffe falsely claimed that she can win the states with the most electoral college votes. I'm not sure how they can make either claim, since she has never run a national campaign, but that's the assertion she and her campaign always makes.

Unfortunately for Hillary, her primary wins in New York, Massachusetts, Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, and others really bear no relationship to how she, or Obama for that matter, will perform in a general election.

Here's why:

First, it's a DEMOCRATIC primary. She's only hearing from less than half of the total electorate, less than half of whom support her. She and her campaign have asserted that only she can win the states that she won in the primaries. Of course, that's absurd on the face, and anyone with objective judgment can recognized that. The Democratic candidate WILL WIN New York, California, Massachusetts, and the other blue states in the general election.

Second, where the Dems need to win is the south, where Obama has shown very strongly in the primaries and the polls, and swing states, like Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Iowa, where Obama has also done very well.

Clearly Obama, and the Dems, in general, have challenges in Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. However, their performance in those states will have nothing to do with how either one of them did against one another.

What matters is how they will do against McCain in those states. The dynamic will be completely different with independents and moderates from both parties participating, and only two candidates.

As this drags out, I believe the supers will continue to migrate towards Obama. They're not stupid. It serves Obama well to just lay back and let her play this out.

He looks magnanimus, and as long as she keeps her fingernails out of his eyes, she won't do much more damage than she already has.

If she goes on the attack again, leadership needs to tell her to shut up and sit down.

  Go to Latest Posting


Comments 0


   
 Saturday, May 10, 2008

Obama vs Hillary: The Numbers

  From Dick Pollman's American Debate

by

Dick Pollman

We have reached a milestone in the Democratic presidential race. Two numbers tell the story:

217 and 257.

There are only 217 delegates left to be chosen in all the remaining primaries. Their number is now vastly exceeded by the 257 superdelegates who have yet to choose on their own.

Here are two more numbers to consider:

178 and 329.

Barack Obama needs only 178 more delegates to clinch the nomination. Hillary Clinton needs 329.

In other words, the 257 fence-sitting superdelegates could end this race right now if only 70 percent of them announced for Obama. That might sound like a daunting share, but it's actually smaller than the percentage that Obama has posted since Tsunami Tuesday on Feb. 5. Between that date and the middle of April, Obama won the allegience of 93 superdelegates; Clinton, only five.

This week alone, Obama has netted at least eight new ones, Clinton only one. Her once-daunting advantage among superdelegates - attributable to her longstanding insider status, and that of her husband's - has been whittled away nearly to nothing. She once lead by several hundred; according to CNN, that lead now stands at eight, and NBC puts her lead at nine.

So, Obama fans may well be asking, what's the holdup? Why don't the superdelegates stick a fork in this race and call it over?

The answer requires one more number: 90. That's the share of unpledged superdelegates who make their living in Washington, as elected politicians - almost half of the superdelegate pool. And they're basically holding out for the simple reason that, if they jumped now for Obama, a lot of their Hillary-friendly constituents would be seriously ticked off, perhaps enough to retaliate against those politicians when they run for re-election this fall. And many represent conservative and/or rural constituencies.

One example: Senator Mary Landrieu of red-state Louisiana. She faces a tough re-election this fall, and doesn't want to alienate any Democratic voters, given the fact that she needs them all. She told MSNBC on Wednesday that she intends to stay neutral, "out of respect for my supporters, half of whom are for Senator Clinton and half of whom are for Senator Obama."

All this suggests that grassroots Clinton followers - taking their cues from the candidate - are not yet willing to concede this race, to countenance any surrender. The period of reconciliation has yet to begin, and it won't happen until Hillary Clinton gives the signal. Presumably, at some point, she will - when the math becomes inescapable.

  Go to Latest Posting


Comments 0


   
 Friday, May 09, 2008

Hillary, Please Quit, Do It for the Sake of United States of America

  Read here in Chicago-Sun Times

Hillary, it's time to call it quits. Don't do it for Barack Obama. Don't do it for the Democratic Party.

Do it for a nation that is ready for, and has everything to gain from, a vigorous general election campaign, one that pits the Democratic and Republican nominees long enough to really show us who -- Obama or Sen. John McCain -- would be the better president.

After a Democratic primary that brought legions of first-time voters to the polls, that engaged us as never before, to bow out now would be the right -- even noble -- thing to do.

Obama has Hillary Clinton beat in both the delegate count and the popular vote. Her chances of catching up in the six remaining primaries and caucuses are virtually nil. Fewer than 500 pledged and superdelegates remain in play, and by accepted estimates she would have to pick up 70 percent of them to become the nominee. Obama needs just 38 percent.

That calculus could change if Clinton succeeded in seating her delegates from the Florida and Michigan primary races, which were held in defiance of party rules, but that would be a deplorable wrong. Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.

If Clinton gracefully walks away now, she will be viewed as magnanimous. If she drags this out, she risks destroying her party's chances come November and sealing her reputation as a party spoiler. Just Wednesday, one of her biggest and most stalwart supporters, former Sen. George McGovern, switched his allegiance to Obama and called on Clinton to drop out. Why? Because, he said, she can't win.

On top of that, Clinton's money is drying up, leaving open the very real possibility she'll be forced out instead of leaving on her own terms.

Clinton's increasingly pointless campaign poses a real danger to the long-term prospects of the Democratic Party.

If Obama bests Clinton in the popular vote and in pledged delegates -- as he has all but done -- but Clinton wrests away just enough superdelegates to take the nomination, the fallout within the party could be devastating. Millions of Democrats would be outraged by what they perceived as a blatant disregard for fair play, and we can only guess how many of them might sit out the general election.

African-American voters, who have voted overwhelmingly for Obama, would feel betrayed, and who could blame them? Obama will have won the popular vote.

First-time voters, who came out in historic numbers for Obama, would feel disaffected as well -- and who could blame them? Obama will have won the popular vote.

Other Democrats, of all races and ages, would be equally offended -- and who could blame them? As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said months ago, basic fairness dictates that the candidate who wins the popular vote (and, to boot, the most pledged delegates) should be the party's nominee.

Our concern, however, is less with the health of the Democratic Party (their own rules and machinations got them in this mess) than with the need for a suitably long general election contest. If Clinton persists in slogging on all the way to the Democratic convention in August, she denies all of us the chance to fully size up Obama vs. McCain.

A good long contest, as we did learn from this endless primary, can be highly revealing. But every extra day Clinton stays in the race is one less day voters can weigh the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the two men vying for president.

"We've got a long road ahead," Clinton told her supporters on Tuesday, "but we're going to keep fighting on that path because America is worth fighting for."

Yes, Hillary, America is worth fighting for. But the best way to fight for America now is to give up the fight.

  Go to Latest Posting


Comments 0


   
 Thursday, May 01, 2008

Obama Catches Up In Support From Hill

  From Washington Post

By

Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray

With endorsements coming in from California, Iowa and Indiana, Sen. Barack Obama yesterday pulled even with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the race for support on Capitol Hill, as Democratic lawmakers shrugged off his recent struggles.

Obama (Ill.) received the backing of Rep. Baron P. Hill, a conservative from a critical district in southern Indiana; Rep. Bruce Braley, an Iowa freshman who grabbed a Republican seat in 2006; and Rep. Lois Capps, who has held her liberal Santa Barbara, Calif., seat for five full terms and whose son-in-law works for the Obama campaign.

A congressional contest that Clinton once dominated is now knotted at 97, and the senator from New York continues to lose ground with the one group that can still deliver her the nomination -- the party leaders and elected officials known as superdelegates.

For the Clinton campaign, the reemergence of the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., soon after Obama's comments about "bitter" small-town voters, was supposed to be the moment when superdelegates decided Obama could not be elected president. Instead, he has won more superdelegate endorsements than Clinton in recent days, whittling her once-overwhelming lead down to about 20.

At an hour-long Obama campaign stop that focused on jobs and health care yesterday at a factory in Indianapolis, no voters asked about Wright. And the candidate told the workers that an Indiana win for him could end the long Democratic nomination fight.

"If we win Indiana, we've got this nomination," Obama said. "We will win the general election, then we can roll up our sleeves and start changing the country."

On Monday, Obama took the endorsement lead among his Democratic Senate colleagues when Sen. Jeff Bingaman (N.M.) announced his support. Obama then pulled even overall after four House nods in two days, with even some rural lawmakers in tough, Republican-leaning districts giving him the benefit of the doubt. Swing-district lawmakers said they are no longer as certain as they once were that Obama would be less divisive than Clinton and attract the support of independents and Republicans in November -- but between the two, he appears to still be the better option.

"I am pleased that Senator Obama clearly and unequivocally denounced Reverend Wright's remarks," Hill said in a statement yesterday. "Hoosiers don't feel that way about our country, I don't feel that way about our country and Senator Obama made it abundantly clear that he doesn't feel that way either."

For elected superdelegates such as Hill, taking a public stand holds considerable political risk. The National Republican Congressional Committee, which hopes to take Hill's always-contested seat in November, quickly attacked him for backing a candidate "who recently claimed that people 'cling' to their religion and the Second Amendment because they are 'bitter.' "

Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio), who remains neutral, marveled that Hill -- who lost his seat in 2004 to Republican Michael E. Sodrel, won it back in 2006 and is likely to face a rematch with Sodrel in November -- came out for Obama. But he said he was even more amazed by Tuesday's endorsement of Obama by Rep. Ben Chandler (D-Ky.), whose district is likely to vote overwhelmingly for Clinton in the Kentucky Democratic primary May 20.

"That's courageous," he said.

Hill and other lawmakers made clear that Obama's recent efforts to put the "bitter" comments behind him and distance himself from his former pastor have satisfied them that he is the best candidate for the top of the Democratic ticket.

"Anybody who did not think Republicans would characterize either of our candidates somehow as deeply flawed has been living in another country, if not another planet," said Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), who remains undecided but believes Obama will be the nominee.

Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.), an Obama supporter, said that at this point there are very few truly uncommitted lawmakers among the 92 who have not publicly endorsed, and he predicted that Obama would seal a majority of them by the final Democratic primaries on June 3.

Amid the positive signs for Obama was one worrisome development: a new television ad by Mississippi congressional candidate Travis Childers, a Democrat, that tries to create distance between Childers and his party's potential nominee. Childers's GOP opponent, Greg Davis, linked him to "liberal Barack Obama" in a previous ad that places Childers's face next to Wright's. The narrator says, "When Obama's pastor cursed America, blaming us for 9/11, Childers said nothing."

The new Childers ad denounces "lies and attacks linking me to politicians I don't know and have never even met."

Braley, the Iowa freshman, said he had already concluded that Obama holds "potential as a leading national figure" because of the "energy and enthusiasm" that he has generated among voters. But he said he was further reassured by the way Obama handled the Wright issue, which erupted again over the weekend.

"He made it very clear where he stands," Braley said.

  Go to Latest Posting


Comments 0