First, what does Edwards himself say about this development? Second, let me know the minute that Edwards becomes a viable candidate.
Posted by TR at March 15, 2008 06:35 PMwhich has nothing to do with my point.
Posted by Turkana at March 15, 2008 06:38 PMRules are rules...if Clinton wins on super delegates, fine. If Obama wins because of pledged delegates, fine.
I just don't understand the hate here...virtually every other post is anti-Obama (and, yes, I know virtually every post on Americablog or Andrew Sullivan is anti-Clinton). Is anyone else tired of this? Hillary is not my first choice but if she wins, I'll vote for her.
Either Democratic candidate is going to come out of this not "battled hardened" but damaged and McCain is just sitting there, wining and dining the press and loving every second of this.
Posted by Mike P at March 15, 2008 06:51 PMi'm not anti-obama, but i am anti the shrill dishonesty of so many obama bloggers. and i agree with you: the rules are pretty wide open, and however the delegates and superdelegates decide, is fine. i would prefer that the supers abide by the overall popular vote, but they aren't required to. the rules let them do whatever they choose to do, and i won't be whining, no matter who they choose.
Posted by Turkana at March 15, 2008 06:56 PMLet me know the minute you find something that Obama has done that isn't evil.
The level of passion and high dudgeon is amazing when one considers how uninspiring and dull the candidates are.
Posted by James E. Powell at March 15, 2008 07:11 PMum. james? where did i accuse obama of having done something wrong?
Posted by Turkana at March 15, 2008 07:16 PMturkana, I'm a former Edwards supporter and this is possibly your most pathetic post ever
you consistently shill for Hillary
Posted by gay veteran at March 15, 2008 07:21 PMshill for hillary? just because i defend her from all the b.s. in the shrillosphere?
and as for this post, it's very simple: either you recognize that the actual rules actually allow for a great deal of leeway in what delegates and superdelegates do, or you don't. i do. but many obama supporters don't. and they can't say the freedom of superdelegates to vote their consciences is bad, and then also celebrate pledged delegates doing the same. it's not very complicated. and i'm being consistent. and i'm calling out those who aren't.
Posted by Turkana at March 15, 2008 07:31 PM:...Edwards suspended his campaign, he did not withdraw it...."
suspend, withdraw? gee, I guess it depend on what the definition of "is" is
Posted by gay veteran at March 15, 2008 07:36 PMactually, there is a very specific difference, part of which is that by suspending and not withdrawing, he retains his delegates. supposedly, anyway. which is exactly why he suspended, rather than withdrawing.
Posted by Turkana at March 15, 2008 07:39 PMObama is more electable.
His negatives are only 49%
http://tinyurl.com/2u693r
Posted by OxyCon at March 15, 2008 07:43 PMlooks like Edwards' delegates are doing the same thing former Edwards' supporters are doing: supporting Obama
Posted by gay veteran at March 15, 2008 07:46 PMoxycon,
electability arguments eight months out are ridiculous.
gay vet,
some are, some aren't. today, some delegates did.
Posted by Turkana at March 15, 2008 07:48 PMTurkana, my first post admittedly was glib, so let me approach this issue from another angle. If any number of delegates pledged from the primaries to either Obama or Hillary were to switch sides, I think that would be wrong. However, if all of Edwards' remaining pledged delegates were to switch to Hillary, Obama or some combination, I think that would be legit because they are switching from a non-viable candidate to a viable one. It's a far cry from pledged delegates switching at the convention to overturn the delegate balance and act against the popular primary vote. If Hillary overtakes Obama in pledged delegates by convention time, I am absolutely planning to support her all the way. If either candidate "poaches" from the other at the convention and tips the balance, I might stay home in November.
By the way, my comment before about what Edwards might think wasn't completely meant to be snark. We could yet find out that he has released his delegates (unless Tully was acting in some official capacity).
there's been no public hint of edwards's intent. i assume he wants his delegates, just in case things get tight enough that he can make a difference.
i don't care who switches or poaches, or whatever. i would prefer that the superdelegates coalesce around the popular vote leader, but i have no problem if they don't. i do have a problem that the rules are so absurd and arbitrary and that the overall will of the people is so poorly, if at all, represented. but the current rules are what they are, and whoever uses them to win wins.
Posted by Turkana at March 15, 2008 07:55 PMG'day Turkana. You seem a bit tense, considering PENNSYLVANIA!!!!!! doesn't vote for five weeks, wouldn't you admit?
Posted by iamnerdoff at March 15, 2008 08:14 PMSaw Markos's typically tackless response: "It's a big internet, so I hope they find what they're looking for." Yes, don't express any regrets over the division, or attempt to bring a little civility to the discourse on your OWN website. A simple "I don't like what X Candidate has been doing, but we can criticize him or her like adults, or like Freepers" could work wonders.
Posted by wilder at March 15, 2008 08:18 PMThe great irony--or is it a Paradox? or possibly a Turkana?--of Hillary's effort to wine and brie the superdelegates, is the fact that she's driving them away (see Pelosi's comments). From tomorrow's NYT:
"While many superdelegates said they intended to keep their options open as the race continued to play out over the next three months, the interviews suggested that the playing field was tilting slightly toward Mr. Obama in one potentially vital respect. Many of them said that in deciding whom to support, they would adopt what Mr. Obama’s campaign has advocated as the essential principle: reflecting the will of the voters."
The commenter above thinks he's so kool. He's an Obamabot! He's a triple reverse double bluff racist!
Posted by iamnerdoff at March 15, 2008 08:32 PMI was attempting humor, Turkana.
It seems Obama's negatives have skyrocketed in that Rasmussen daily tracking poll I posted.
I wonder what could have caused that to happen?
And the rules once again prove a bad joke.
Well then... on to the convention so the delegates can truly count.
I still don't understand why Edwards dropped out before Super Tuesday? Only a week to go and he'd of been in a much stronger position (delegate wise).
It seems Obama's negatives have skyrocketed in that Rasmussen daily tracking poll I posted. I wonder what could have caused that to happen?
Hmmm...could it be because his campaign plays the race card about every five seconds? Or because they shout "RACIST!" at everyone who has even the most mild disagreement with them, even their fellow Democrats? Or because they're mockingly dismissing their own sexism? Or because they're blithely writing off half their potential Democratic voters as "old bitches who should fuck off and die"? Or all of the above?
Posted by Blue Jean at March 15, 2008 08:59 PMI've decided that TLC is the People's Front of Judea and Daily Kos is the People's Judean Front.
If you don't understand the reference, look it up.
Posted by ren at March 15, 2008 09:14 PMIt's gotta suck to be you.
See you in the general election. Voting for Obama.
Posted by Barry at March 15, 2008 11:40 PMIt's important that we respect the independent judgment of superdelegates, who have the responsibility of casting a vote for the candidate they believe is best qualified to be president.
Posted by Curtis at March 16, 2008 12:09 AMI view the Super Delegates, and this is my humble opinion, as kind of an Electoral College for our primary.
Gore, the foremost recent example of how you can win the popular vote, but ultimately lose the prize.
I've always regarded Hillary's lead on the Super Delegate scorecard as an understandable result of her previous experience within the community of successful politicians and politicos that have fought many previous battles against the Republican machine and who themselves understand how difficult that fight can be.
Yes, some of those super delegates have drifted over to Obama, and more power to him. But should he eventually win the nomination, those super delegates had better be able to deliver the vote during what will surely be a last gasp, caution to the wind, campaign by a very experienced Republican smear machine.
Posted by RickWn at March 16, 2008 12:39 AMI wonder if the boot was on the other foot you'd be crowing about Edwards` delegates going to Clinton as a sign that she'll be the nominee.
Posted by John at March 16, 2008 03:14 AMnewsflash
reverend wright's tirades against white people..the pastor whose congregation obama sat in for 20 yrs...was married by him...is a friend of...and christened his children...the tirades were actually a covert ploy by the clinton campaign to inject racism into the campaign..doesn't anyone understand that
Posted by dennis at March 16, 2008 04:28 AM
Is Turkana going to Daily Kos this blog? Translated: no dissenting opinions allowed if you're not in the "Hillary is God" camp?
ren: "I've decided that TLC is the People's Front of Judea and Daily Kos is the People's Judean Front...."
LOL, good one, and the ReThugs are the Romans
Posted by gay veteran at March 16, 2008 05:53 AMb-b-but the Rezko "scandal" was going to destroy Obama! from the conservative Chicago Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0316edit1mar16,0,2616801.story
Posted by gay veteran at March 16, 2008 07:50 AMand speaking of Edwards:
"...Here's a thought experiment: Imagine John Edwards had beaten Hillary in 14 of the last 17 states. Imagine he was leading in both the popular vote and the delegate count, and that she couldn't possibly win the nomination without the help of superdelegates.
Then imagine her offering Edwards the number two spot, and that being a plausible solution among media analysts and in the public mind.
Can't picture it? Neither can I....
Posted by gay veteran at March 16, 2008 08:01 AMSince Clinton's great comeback in Ohio and Texas Obama's gotten 12 super delegates, Clinton 1. Clinton got 9 more delegates than Obama in Ohio. Obama got back 7 yesterday. That makes the great comeback nothing. There is a difference between delegates jumping from a candidate who's out of the race and jumping from one viable candidate to another, Turkana.
Despite OxyCon's deep and apparently irrational hatred of the black candidate Obama is by far the most electable Democrat in this race as polls consistently demonstrate.
If Clinton supporters listen to Democrats not directly connected to the Clinton campaign they would be hearing over and over that the Pelosis, the Sherrod Browns, etc., all are pleading/predicting that this race will be over before the convention. If this were a mathmatical equation perhaps it would be easier for Clinton supporters to understand. She can't win without a floor fight, she almost certainly can't win with a floor flight, but she can mortally wound the Democrats in the fall. That is, she can only blackmail the Dems now.
That means that the more Ferraro eruptions, the more Clinton loses among the super delegates she has hoped would come to her.
Maybe the Alan Petricofs of the world are going to withold money from the DNC in an attempt to get Dean to bend to Clinton's will, but that's not going to happen. That too will only strengthen the anti-Clinton animus within the Party structure. And if they do go forward with their threats it can only separate the Dems from the kind of money that they never should have been taking anyway.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 16, 2008 08:54 AMdennis, no one is going to try to separate you from you racism. Just don't show it so much, or at least be a little more subtle.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 16, 2008 08:57 AMAt the convention, after the first round of voting and there is no winner, aren't the delegates free to vote any way they want on the second round?
So because neither candidate has the magic number to win on the first round doesn't this move to an open convention where delegates are free to vote any way they want?
So isn't all this BS about what delegates should do just going to fall apart anyway on the convention floor? Because really no one has control of this thing.
clinton can't beat mccain.
if she is the nominee, the democratic party will break into tiny little pieces.
not sayin that's a bad thing
I don't think it's hypocritical, Turkana, not so long as it results in an Obama victory. LOL!
Just kidding.
Actually, I agree with Bob.
Since Edwards suspended his efforts, I have been ignoring all the candidates for the most part, but I did read a local (Raleigh) news report that said he was encouraging his delegates to sit tight until the convention--that was early this past week.
And as to "suspend", Mitt Romney made the same distinction about a week after he "suspended" his campaign and McCain was being hit with "lobbyists on the bus" charges---namely, that "suspend" does not mean outright "end" his run for the Presidential nomination. I am under the impression it is a legal term that allows accounts to be tallied and auditing for close-out to be orderly, but apparently there are others who believe otherwise.
Posted by gtash at March 16, 2008 12:11 PMhey bob in pacifica...did you see the good reverends tirade..and if so what do you make of it? cause i don't believe i am a racist..and i also don't consider myself stupid..know what i mean?
Posted by at March 16, 2008 02:16 PMA lot of anger here. But I am curious why someone believes that Obama has somehow suggested that "old bitches" should "fuck off and die". I've never heard him say that, it is not in any of his policy positions and that would seem to contradict his messages of unity and hope. I must have missed something along the way. But I am just passing through following links around the net and maybe I have stumbled upon a place where a lot of angry Hillary people hang out.
Posted by Rick W at March 16, 2008 05:11 PMRick W said:
...But I am just passing through following links around the net and maybe I have stumbled upon a place where a lot of angry Hillary people hang out.
Bingo! Well, that and a few bitter old idiots like me who remember when this blog used to be so much more than a Hillary blog.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 16, 2008 06:32 PMAh, Brian, the good old days when LC was a real blog and everybody loved everybody else and vitriol didn't exist.
Everybody hated GWB and everybody had hope that someday things would get better in the USA.
But that never happened and now LC is like Kos or FreeRepublic.
Posted by Lou Ida at March 17, 2008 05:35 AMHuh??
Petifogging about a few delegates here and there doesn't change the basic math:
Hillary needs either 58% of the remaining pledged delegates (if MI and FL revote) or 64% (if they don't). Plus or minus a point or two. Numbers:
http://trueconservative.typepad.com/trueconservative/2008/03/the-real-delega.html
Obama with less than 42%/36%? Get real.
The SDs--Democratic Party players all--are the very last people who would ignite the conflagration which would result from overriding that vote.
Absent a (Democratically disastrous) complete Obama meltdown (which seems to be Hillary's hope and goal),
It's over.
Posted by Steve Roth at March 17, 2008 12:57 PM