The latest superdelegate shoe drops. Joesph J. Andrew, Chair of the DNC during the Clinton era, has changed his mind in favor of Obama. (It is a long letter, but there are many valuable insights to be gained.)
Innuendo is easy. The truth is hard.
Sound bites are easy. Solutions are hard.
Spin is simple and easy. Struggling with facts is complicated and hard.
I would add to this list that a gas tax holiday is easy. Getting us off the crude oil teet is a serious challenge.
UPDATE 2 May 2008 11:45AM
Our own Paul Kirk has also made his allegiance clear.
Please share widely!
False premise #1: A vote for Clinton is a vote to drag the process on. The implication being that a vote for Obama closes the deal. Sorry, no such luck. Obama won’t have enough pledged delegates by June either. I am confident at this point that every remaining primary will be contested. Neither candidate is going anywhere, regardless of results in the upcoming primaries, which leads us to…
<
p>False premise #2: A vote to prolong the process helps John McCain. John McCain right now needs to hit two targets instead of one. Then there are all the new voters we are bringing out to ultimately help us in November, but we lose the opportunity in remaining states if we call it off now.
<
p>Add Joe Andrew to the list of people who go down in my esteem for reneging on a previous public pledge.
It’s sad that so many people are making their selection on the premise that Americans, Democrats in particular, are stupid, bitter people. When this process ends in late June, we’ll still have five months to heal divisions and to make the case against Dubya’s approved heir. Deciding whom to support based on the assumption that Democrats are whiny little children isn’t the way to pick a president.
<
p>With that in mind, I fully believe that Andrew decided a while ago to switch, and is doing so now because his home state is voting on Tuesday, and Obama desperately needs some good news. His reasons are straight from Hope Central.
Andrew on NPR today (and every other media outlet who will take him) explaining his epiphany…a little weak…seems like he was just looking for his 15 minutes of media attention…To file: don’t count on Andrew for anything that requires loyalty and fortitude, he’s a smarmy sort.
We all know that Clinton either needs to win 70% of the remaining unpledged superdelegates or she needs committed Obama delegates to jump to her. For many of the reasons noted above, I’m fine with a campaign that goes through June, but please, folks, save your indignation over “loyalty” and “fortitude” when the very hopes of your candidate depend on someone else’s Judas.
All of these estimates about the number of delgates Hillary needs are based partly on projections of elections that haven’t even happened yet, as well as yet-to-happen delegate allocations from past primaries and caucuses. This is still a dynamic race, and Clinton clearly has momentum. Your scenario may play out, but it’s just not accurate to present your numbers as facts. They’re projections.
Please don’t take my “projections.” Click on this link and play with the numbers yourself. Plug in the most optimistic numbers you want.
<
p>This is not just a random estimate. In the best case scenario, Clinton could win each of the seen remaining contests 60-40 and still need 64% of the undeclared supers. Does anyone honestly believe she can win 7 straight primaries by 20 or more points?
<
p>Using recent polls in each state and bumping them all a couple of points in Clinton’s favor, she’d still need to win more than 70% of the undeclared superdelegates. If Obama wins NC and OR, as expected, and gets at least 40-45% in the other states, then Clinton needs 75% of the undeclared superdelegates.
<
p>She needs to get 62% of ALL the remaining/undeclared/unallocated delegates in order to get the nomination. Obama only needs 41%.
<
p>I agree that Clinton clearly has the momentum right now, but short of the supers breaking in her favor in incredible numbers, there is little chance she can catch Obama.
That should be “seven remaining contests.”
The latest superdelegate shoe drops.
<
p>I hope your just playing here by implying N number of shoes, but I’d hate for the excellent and useful metaphor of “the other shoe drops” to lose its meaning. The idea is that when you hear one shoe drop, you know with delightful certainty that exactly one more shoe is going to drop in just a few more seconds, and then you’ll hear silence as the now shoeless upstairs neighbor crawls under the covers and goes to bed. But you are right to note that with both superdelegates and shoes, there is likely to be a cluster of drops all happening around the same time, but unless we know there will exactly one immediately following the first, use another metaphor please.
Paul Kirk’s allegience is and will always be with the Kennedy’s…(Dodd and Kirk can be counted on by Ted and the Kennedy family to do what they are told)…Andrew’s, well, who he is trying to please, he is trying for his personal Wright spotlight moment, I guess…
<
p>But, today more than several former DNC Chairs have stood together for Clinton and for a Nov. victory:
<
p>Former DNC chairs write to DNC members on behalf of Senator Clinton
<
p>HRC is publicly supported by several prominent former DNC Chairs, including the family of late DNC Chairman Ron Brown. Collectively, these leaders represent more than 30 years of commitment to the DNC. They have written to DNC members today to discuss their support for HRC. Below is a copy of the letter:
<
p>May 2, 2008
<
p>Dear Fellow Democratic Party Member:
<
p>Democratic National Committee members work tirelessly to elect Democrats locally, and they serve as strong advocates for finding solutions to our nation’s most pressing problems. As former DNC Chairs, we are proud to be leaders in a Party that seeks to alleviate the burden of limited access to health care, fix broken systems of public education, improve working conditions for middle-class men and women, and ensure America’s safety and security, at home and abroad.
<
p>Those of us who support Hillary Clinton for president do so with the knowledge that she, just like us, has dedicated her life to improving the standard of living for others, and she has worked to make our Party the strong force that it is today. Her values are our Party’s values. Her record of fiscal prudence is matched by her commitment to social responsibility. Her accomplishments in the area of strengthening America’s security are a matter of public record.
<
p>Hillary has run one of the most formidable campaigns in the history of our Party. Her wins this primary season are significant – Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas. Her base of support includes women, Hispanics, seniors, Catholics, middle and low income Americans, and rural, suburban and urban voters. That’s a formidable coalition tailor-made for victory in a November general election.
<
p>In fact, if the election were held today, Hillary would beat Senator McCain, but Senator Obama would lose to the presumptive GOP nominee. According to the most recent polls available, Hillary would beat McCain by a margin of 279 to 259 Electoral Votes. But McCain would beat Obama by a margin of 291 to 247 Electoral Votes.
<
p>In a hypothetical general election matchup with McCain, Clinton is winning handily (50%-41%) while Obama is statistically tied with McCain (46%-44%), according to the AP-Ipsos poll released Monday. In the days following the Pennsylvania primary, Gallup Poll Daily tracking showed Hillary pulling even with Senator Obama. As of Thursday, Hillary was ahead 49%-45%.
<
p>Hillary can win our Party’s nomination. She is neck and neck with her opponent in Indiana and North Carolina. Both states have sizeable voting blocs that resemble constituencies who supported Hillary by large margins in Pennsylvania, Ohio and other contests.
<
p>Years of job loss and the recent economic slowdown mean that most Indiana and North Carolina voters are more concerned about the economy than anything else. Hillary has consistently garnered the majority of support from voters who say the economy is the most important issue facing our country.
<
p>Hillary’s campaign is currently operating at full capacity in Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota.
<
p>As in states that have already voted, election official are expecting record turnouts. Pennsylvaniaregistered more than 215,000 new voters ahead of its April 22 primary. More than 200,000 new voters have registered in Indiana since the start of the year. And in counties across North Carolina, registration numbers are double – or triple – what they were in 2004.
<
p>More than 30 million Americans have already cast a ballot in our Party’s nomination contest and millions more will go to the polls between now and June 3. The record numbers of Americans who are registering and coming out to vote reflect the excitement about our candidates and the strength that our nominee will have behind him or her in the fall. The primary process will make our nominee stronger and better prepared to take on John McCain. Our Party only gains from having more voters – including more new voters – all across our country.
<
p>We encourage you to continue to fully consider Hillary Clinton and the fact that she is qualified and accomplished. Too much is at stake for us not to consider deeply the choice we must make for our Party and our country.
<
p>Sincerely,
<
p>Kenneth Curtis
Former DNC Chairman (1977-1978)
<
p>Charles Manatt
Former DNC Chairman (1981-1985)
<
p>The Family of the late Ron Brown
Former DNC Chairman (1989-1993)
Mrs. Alma Brown, Michael Arrington Brown & Tracey Brown James
<
p>Debra DeLee
Former DNC Chair (1994-1995)
<
p>Don Fowler
Former DNC National Chairman (1995-1997)
<
p>Steve Grossman
Former DNC National Chairman (1997-1999)
<
p>Governor Edward Rendell
Former DNC General Chairman (1999-2001)
<
p>Terence McAuliffe
Former DNC Chairman (2001-2005)
The letter claims as “significant” her wins of Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas. Despite the fact that Obama was not on the ballot in MI, she won fewer delegates in Nevada and Texas, and won New Mexico by the barest of margins. Calling those wins significant is more than a bit of a stretch, especially when she really should have won all of those states by large margins.
<
p>Of course, most people don’t know who the party chairmen were or even remotely care what they think. This is all aimed at the superdelegates.
<
p>Clinton’s only hope is to win the remaining races by large margins. If she cannot get Obama’s delegate lead down to around 20 or 30, she cannot hope to win the nomination without doing very serious damage to the party, and in the final analysis I don’t think the superdelegates will be willing to do that.
<
p>
the people that sign the letter were expressing their own opinion. You can dispute it, but you can’t change it.
<
p>Given that Obama’s campaign to inspire and hope for a “new politics” suffered severe credibility and judgment wounds over the past month which led to falling poll numbers, it is not surprising that many Democrats are wondering if we are paving the way to defeat with Obama. Can’t blame them for that.
<
p>Obama has touted his “judgment”, “new, higher road politics”, and “honesty” as reasons to make him President…turns out, he is no different from the other politicians he has demonized and criticized…his judgement with Wright was flawed, he is more than willing to use low road attacks and deceiving negative ads, and it took plummeting poll numbers to make him finally break his 20 years of ties with Wright (Wright said nothing at the National Press Club that he had not said many times before and Obama was more than aware…his “outrage” made his earlier race in America speech look foolish and disingenuous)
<
p>Barack obama may be the nominee…and more than a few former Democratic Chairs will rue the day it happened.
Do you honestly believe that those people when questioned in public would actually claim any of those states as “significant” wins. I don’t believe it for a second.
<
p>They signed the letter for the overall content, not because they necessarily agreed with the content of every sentence. But in the end, they ended up signing a something that reads more like a press release than an actual heartfelt endorsement.
<
p>I agree that if Obama is the nominee, some former DNC chairs may not be happy, but I don’t see why that is a bad thing. Personally, I think that most of those chairs did a mediocre job and I don’t care in the least what any of them (including Andrew) think of either candidate.