Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

One more MA superdelegate backs Obama

By

This just in, from Obama Central!

DNC MEMBER MARGARET XIFARAS ENDORSES BARACK OBAMA

Massachusetts Superdelegate Cites Obama’s organizational strength and success in all parts of the country

Chicago, IL – Today, Democratic National Committee Member Margaret Xifaras endorsed Barack Obama for president.

Xifaras said, “I was consciously and purposefully uncommitted in the Presidential race for well over a year.  I felt strongly that I wanted to see how each campaign handled the organizational, financial, issues development, and strategic aspects of his or her campaign.  

“In the last few weeks I have increasingly felt drawn to support Barack Obama.  From a decisive win in Iowa to the last ten wins after Super Tuesday, Obama and his campaign have shown their strengths organizationally, financially, issues-wise, and certainly strategically.  If they had just said those words about change, it would not have been enough — the campaign would have have stalled or peaked long ago.  But they have tapped into so many more important lines: financial support, relevant issues, and superb training and reaching out through community based organizers rather than just the same old political establishment.

“My position was to beware a primary race so close that it could be decided by the superdelegates.  While I think it is important that the party´s elected representatives and their elected members of the DNC have this status, we all need to be both cognizant of and respect what the people are saying out there “north and south, east and west, and in the middle” as Obama himself says.

“And voters across the country, from every party and every walk of life are embracing Barack Obama’s call for real change.  I am committed to voting for Obama at the convention and, importantly, I am looking to help Congressman Bill Delahunt, Governor Deval Patrick and others contact other superdelegates to urge them to do the same.  We must sustain this surge of interest and involvement and effectively respond to this hunger for significant change — not just in the people in Washington, but in the mindset in Washington.  This is why I am supporting Barack Obama.”

That’s as solid and sensible a statement as I’ve yet seen on the superdelegate issue.  Disclosure: I worked with Xifaras on Gov. Patrick’s transition team — she was on the Civic Engagement working group that I co-chaired.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. How one can say this:

    <

    p>

    “[W]e all need to be both cognizant of and respect what the people are saying out there ‘north and south, east and west, and in the middle … ‘”

    <

    p>And then make an endorsement before the second largest state in the country has voted escapes me.

    <

    p>And of course, Clinton is up over Obama in the latest poll.

    <

    p>This must particularly sting for Clinton since Xifaras gave her 1,000 for her Senate run.

    <

    p>Click here for Wikipedia’s count of pledged votes by the aristocracy SuperDelegates.

  2. “Disclosure: I worked with Xifaras on Gov. Patrick’s transition team — she was on the Civic Engagement working group that I co-chaired.”

    <

    p>How’s that Civic Engagement thing going?

  3. My disclaimer – I have worked with and respected Ms. Xifaras for years. (and will continue to do so!)

    <

    p>Her decision to announce support for Obama is disappointing for two reasons. First and most important in my mind is that Massachusetts voters made their choice very clearly with a large margin of victory for Hillary Clinton. As a Massachusetts Superdelegate uncommitted prior to the state’s primary, Ms. X is failing to represent the Democratic majority who voted in that primary.

    <

    p>The raging debate over Superdelegates has been that the voters not the SDs should make the decision on the nominee. Her decision adds fuel to that fire.

    <

    p>Secondly, and totally personal, I dislike being on the oppose side of Ms. X in any campaign.  

    • Ms. X. is a DNC committee member. She’s not an elected official, right? (correct me if i’m wrong) As i understand it, the above argument really only holds that elected officials are supposed to vote the way of the democratic majority. I’m not actually sure that i personally buy this reasoning anyway. Elected officials aren’t really elected to rubber stamp the voters wishes but because we think they will have our best interests in mind when they pass policy. If we think that they have not lived up to that promise, i.e. voted against our wishes, then we have the power to vote them out of office. (i’m personally not a big fan of the super delegate process, i think it gives undue power of vote to a few and diminishes the power of the many, but that’s an argument for another day)

    • Well first, I think the whole superdelegate thing is very undemocratic…but then so are caucuses and really our Primary systems kind of suck generally.

      <

      p>Having said that, the notion that there is something inappropriate with a SD voting against the majority in this on other state seems silly.  If they were supposed to do that, it would be mandated, wouldn’t it?  Or we wouldn’t even have them, right?

      <

      p>I’d scrap the system in a second if I could, but it’s the one we got… and don’t pretend Xifaras did anything wrong just cause she didn’t pick YOUR candidate.  

      • I am disappointed that X didn’t declare for Senator Clinton. And while Senator Clinton is MY candidate Senator Clinton is also the candidate of a strong majority of Massachusetts voters in the Democratic Primary. Having that as a guideline seems very appropriate for a DNC member who was uncommitted prior to the primary.

        <

        p>And I didn’t advocate for it being mandatory that they vote with their state popular vote.  

  4. I was hoping to read something from source, so I can cite it where appropriate.  Has anybody found anything on bodotcom or elsewhere?

  5. She ran Gore’s kick ass Pennsylvania field operation in 2000 and he took the state, generating a really massive turnout in Philly.  I think she is serious judge of this stuff and endorses because Obama he has run a superior and engaging campaign.  

  6. How could she disrespect the will of the voters?!!?!?!!?!?!!?!?!

    <

    p>/snark off

    <

    p>My the hypocrisy that exists here and elsewhere… shouldn’t BMG’s Obama supporters be condemning her or something? After all, Hillary won Massachusetts by a landslide and its only fair its superdelegates all vote for the winner of their state, instead of actually voting their gut (as is allowed). Note that I think it’s fine she’s voting for Obama, I just hope this shuts up the superdelegate controversy on this board.

    • and Ms. Xifaras has.  I’ve argued the worst outcome would be for Hillary to win on superdels after losing pledged delegates.  Why?  Because it would leave her very weak going into the general with tons of Obama’s folks (indies and young voters) put off from voting for her even more than they would be otherwise.  That would be not be true for Obama conversely because he’s still fresh and doesn’t carry her high negatives.

      <

      p>I think superdels should take into account who they think is the best candidate, who can win and how their nomination will be perceived, and who would make the best president, but obviously they have to also consider the views of their local electorates, particularly if they are elected officials.

      <

      p>And a lot has changed in the race since Feb 5th.  I’m not sure Hillary would win Massachusetts today, or by her big margins.  She was able to rack up a lot of wins on 5th Feb because Obama was spread thin and she started everywhere with big leads.

      • This is yet another example of the “nanny attitude”.   I know what is best for you folks.  I’m smarter.

        <

        p>For her to wantonly disregard the wishes of the voters is reprehensible, at least.

        <

        p>The voters spoke loud and clearly. To let their voices be silenced based on personal preference is undemocratic.

        <

        p>This drives folks away from the process and participation.

        <

        p>Why have a primary if the SD’s usurp the voters wishes?

    • is this: let’s assume that by convention time, it’s pretty obvious that Obama has won more primaries, more pledged delegates, etc. — but not enough to clinch it without some supers.  Should the MA superdelegates go with the overall will of the Democratic electorate (Obama), or with the will of the MA electorate (Clinton)?

      • they should go with whoever provides the best pizza.  and maybe foot massages.  (i’m hungry…and tired…)

      • Removing all snark from my answer, it’s pretty clear: superdelegates should vote for who they want. However, I think it’s funny to see the huge movement from Obama supporters to get supers to vote the will of their state – without any of them condemning Obama’s hefty sum of Superdelegates that will vote for him, despite the will of their state. As in this case, here.

        <

        p>Either they think Supers should vote how they want, or they should stop urging them to vote for the will of their state.

  9. I am also a long-time fan of Mardee Xifaras and trust that her decision was sincere and well-considered.   But for those Massachusetts Super Delegates who are still on the sidelines I want to argue that now is not the time to make this decision.

    <

    p>While it is literally true that voters in all parts of the country have embraced Barack Obama, it is also true for Hillary Clinton.  As avid followers of this campaign, we all know that, with the exception of Illinois, Hillary has won the biggest states and won a number of primaries where the turnout on both sides was impressive.  I would suggest that a significant chunk of Obama’s present momentum, which has given him a slight edge in elected delegates, is the product of a streak of caucus states where a small and unrepresentative fraction of the voters have spoken.  I may be wrong.  But we will all know that on March 5, after Ohio and Texas have been decided.  

    <

    p>Personally, I don’t think we need to put extra weight on the scale now, before March 4, to avoid a close and divisive race.  Voters in Ohio and Texas should support who they think be the best President, and that will tell us something important about both our party’s nomination and next November.  If it is Obama, so be it.  If it is Hillary, despite Obama’s money, momentum and the desire for party unity, doesn’t that say something?  

    <

    p>Mardee also says, and I agree with her on this, that it is important that elected Democratic leaders and elected members of the Democratic National Committee have Super Delegate status.  Implicitly, she is also saying, contrary to many out there, that Super Delegates should exercise independent judgment, as she has (i.e., considering the primary and caucus results but not necessarily driven by them).

    <

    p>I’m disappointed that the Obama campaign has fed the idea that Super Delegates are going to “overturn” the voters’ decision and has stayed on the sidelines as its allies have used falsehoods (e.g., MoveOn’s petition claims that these delegates are 40% of the Convention total, more than double the actual percentage)  or distorted views of Super Delegates (e.g., that they are unaccountable retired politicians and party hacks, when a majority are elected officials).  Mardee’s statement, to her credit, correctly notes that not only are most Super Delegates elected governors, senators and members of congress, but even the DNC members are ultimately accountable to their state committees.  

    <

    p>If the Super Delegates wind up deciding the nomination, it is not because they “overturned” the voters’ decision.  It will be because, after all the caucuses and primaries are over, the two candidates will have fought to a virtual tie.  

  10. For all the work she has done for our party, she can endorse whoever she wants, which gets back to the main premise of “superdelegates” as people who have paid their dues.

    <

    p>That said, the people of Massachusetts did send a loud and clear message on February 5.

Archives