Just got home from the DSC Delegate and DNC member Elections…Hillary Clinton picked up some unexpected extra delegates today at the DSC Elections and more than a few “messages” were sent in the process.
Losers:
Ted Kennedy- His longtime banner-carrier Marty Xifaris (Obama supporter) was ousted from her DNC member slot by Sue Thompson (Hillary Clinton organizer/coordinator). It didn’t help Marty any that Kennedy dissed Clinton yet again yesterday on the VP thing. The buzz around the room when the vote was announced was interesting…it had less to do with Marty (who has worked so hard for so many years for Dems) and more to do with the fact that the Kennedy influence era is finally over….as Ted would say: time to turn the page and pass the baton.
Tim Cahill- the State Treasurer gave a windy speech assuring everyone that he was neutral and would not decide until all primary ballots were cast. WRONG ANSWER. He was soundly defeated by Arthur Powell, (a Hillary Clinton supporter and DSC workhorse) What is it RFK used to say from Dante? “The hottest place in hell is reserved for those who in a critical time choose to preserve their neutrality”…
Winners:
Arthur Powell who lost for delegate at his Congressional District Caucus, but managed to have his hard work rewarded today…he is a sure fire Hillary vote at the convention although he was elected as an undeclared delegate…good for Arthur.
Gus Bickford- topped the ticket for re-election to DNC member…he has been travelling in multiple states for Clinton…he returned home to an easy victory today.
Were you at the DSC elections today? Please add your observations!
So Massachusetts is going to be a drag on the convention when everyone can see that Hilary has lost. Hmmmm.
So well pesky Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois … in short, almost half the delegates there!
link?
the 50% of seated Florida delegates that might will be there.
they may as well not seat any delegates at all…they will have broken faith with the 1.75 MILLION FL Dems who voted in the Democratic primary only to have their wishes discarded.
I think it would be much fairer to give them a vote, but if that’s what you prefer.
I am glad you finally agree that giving the poepole of MI and FL a vote. It’s kind of funny that your candidate has done his damndest to run out the clock and avoid giving the people of MI and FL a voice.
<
p>
Well, it is not only Obama that has tried to run out the clock. The Clinton campaign has killed every effort to revote using a caucus system that would have been much easier to implement than a primary. The Clinton camp has also killed every compromise short of counting the votes exactly the way she wants.
<
p>And that is exactly what your comment betrays. You are not interested in having their votes count for 1/2 (like the Republicans did) because that doesn’t help Clinton enough. It has nothing to do with the voters at all.
you like to be in, Kev? How reasonable is this proposal to people who believe in Big D Democracy?
<
p>BTW, you’re supporting caucuses which (oh yeah) favor your candidate in states that run primaries.
<
p>
Which half? Does that even make any sense? The proposal is for all the delegates to go but to get 1/2 votes. The Republicans penalized their early states by taking away half their votes and that has not caused any real uproar about disenfrancisment.
<
p>Regarding the caucus. The type of caucus that was proposed would have been exactly like a primary — you could vote and leave anytime during the day — so I don’t see how that favors Obama unless you believe that just calling it a “caucus” somehow favors him.
<
p>The simple fact is that while you can blame Obama as well, Clinton has played a very strong part in preventing any type of compromise whatsoever. There is simply no denying that.
Kevin,
Logic is a castle made of sand sometimes.
<
p>
HRKevin and John from Lowell…since you would disenfranchise FL voters, how do you plan to make up for the electoral votes from Florida that will be going to McCain. You will have to find away to make them up somewhere else, because to win the presidency Dems need to win 2 out of 3 of the FL-PA-OH trio…and right now in head to head match ups McCain is leading Obama in 2 out of three. If you want to concede FL before Nov, where will you make up those votes?
<
p>West Virginia? Kentucky? New Hampshire? Either Carolina? Georgia? Mississippi? Louisiana? don’t think so…you guys need a plan. Hmmm…could be a tough one.
with the black vote that will come out in droves.
<
p>Hey! Look at me! I think I just played a race card. Like “winning the race” card.
<
p>Seriously,
You speak of FL like it is a sure bet loss. Of course you set up a false pretense to validate the rest of your, hmmm…what is it that you are blogging?
<
p>Logic wouldn’t be it. Oh, maybe fear mongering?
<
p>FL and MI will be seated at the convention.
are different! The demographics of voters in each of the groupings that have been sliced and diced to death in the primaries are quite different percentage wise in the general election. That’s why historically red states where Obama won in caucuses and southern primaries are apt to remain red in Nov….it’s great that the voter registrations are up because we are going to need them…. but there is a long road ahead.
Do you remember the stories? That was the margin of victory for “dubya.”
<
p>Next?
First, I do believe that the FL and MI votes should be counted somehow and I have stated that before. I also believe that those states should be punished for going early, much as states like PA and IN are rewarded with extra delegates for going later (gee, how come no one complains about how unfair that is).
<
p>No reasonable person can deny that many people did indeed go out to vote on those days. By the same token it is clear that many people who might have voted in a sanctioned election either did not or voted in the Republican race instead. It is also very clear that most of the people who voted for Uncommitted in MI would have voted for Obama if given the chance. There is also no question that in the first half of this contest Obama has always done better than previously polled after actively campaigning in a state. All of this suggests that the results from both MI and FL are not the same as would have been obtained if those races had been sanctioned by the party and the candidates had the time to campaign there. So any reasonable person would have to agree that the results from both of those races, and particuarly in MI, were far from a perfect representation of the will of the electorate.
<
p>So what do you do? Clinton wants the original votes to stand with Obama getting zero delegates in MI. That hardly seems fair. You may disagree, but I think that it is important to punish MI and FL for going against the party rules, but in a way that does not entirely disenfranchise the voters. Here is what I would propose:
<
p>The full delegations from both FL and MI get to attend the convention, with Obama receiving all of the uncommitted delegates from MI, all regular pledged delegates and add-on superdelegates getting full votes, and the remaining superdelegates (or automatic delegates in Clinton lingo) getting no votes. Furthermore, superdelegates would not be allowed to serve as a pledged delegate or add on. This punishes the party leaders from MI and FL who are mostly responsible for this mess without disenfranchising voters. Does that seem fair?
When you say that you are talking about general election match-ups. Aren’t you a Democrat? Aren’t you going to get behind the Democratic nominee no matter who it is? I know that I will. So why are you talking about it being someone else’s problem about how we are going to win the general election.
<
p>Personally, I am not very concerned about our prospects.
<
p>While Clinton does well vs McCain in FL, OH, and PA, Obama is still within a point of McCain in FL and OH and beats him handily in PA according to one recent poll. That is actually quite good considering the fact that Obama has been so frequently attacked while McCain has gotten a free pass for the last couple of months. Furthermore, Obama brings states like TX into play. But I actually don’t think these polls tell the whole story. When the economy continues to tank and McCain starts getting day-to-day scrutiny and his senile gaffes start getting more media attention, I am confident that a Democrat would have to run a really bad campaign to lose this fall.
Obama doesn’t need Clinton supporters. Ask Ted.
I welcome any and all support for Obama and I’m delighted that he will get the nomination. I am hoping wwe can all come together around his candidacy.
Also. Who is the second super delegate or is there one?
when asked about a potential dream ticket. He said it wasn’t possible and that Mr. Obama should pick someone who is in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people.
<
p>He also stated that “if we had real leadership – as we do with Barak Obama – in the number two spot as well, it’d be enormously helpful.”
<
p>You can’t blame Clinton supporters for being more than a tad annoyed with this shite.
Ted didn’t say that and I don’t think you will find any Obama supporter who believes that. So why do you keep saying that over and over again?
<
p>Yes, Ted’s statement dissed Clinton, and I don’t blame you at all for being pissed about it, since I sure would in if I were
in your shoes, but you don’t need to make your point by
hyper-exaggerating what he said.
<
p>I also think that if putting Clinton on the ticket is the
only thing that will satisfy her supporters, I believe that
Obama will do it. He’s not dumb.
<
p>
I have had a number of Clinton supporters, many of them women, who have told me they are either voting for McCain, not voting, or writing in Hillary Clinton’s name. These are not party activists, and many of them are unenrolled, but they are really mad at how Hillary Clinton has been treated by Sen. Kennedy and other supporters of Obama. Barack Obama is going to have to do something dramatic to solve this serious problem. If he or the Democratic Party leaders ignore it as so-much hype, they do so at the peril of the Democratic Party and its chances to put a Democrat in the White House. Asking Hillary Clinton to be his running mate would be something dramatic. I do not think she will accept, but I do think it will make a lot of her supporters a little less angry at how she, and they, have been unfairly treated.
I could talk with anyone. I agree that in order to have unity, there needs to be far more diplomacy and consideration than much of what was shown.
<
p>Both Obama and Clinton caps would do well to begin a courtship of their rivals. Continued saber-rattling is not only useless, it is stupid.
<
p>I agree that the Motion [which did not get tabled and did get passed for whatever heft it has or does not have] was annoying and untlimately unlikely to have much if any effect.
<
p>As a practical matter, both Florida and Michigan ultimately showed poor judgment. They lost millions of dollars in printing and advertising revenue for their states by trying to “take a cut in line” because each would have been in the limielight, the spotlight, however you want to put it, had they left “good enough alone”.
So, you’re a woman who is bitter at how Hillary has been treated by the male-dominated Democratic establishment (because surely Hillary Clinton– being a woman– is not part of any sort of Democratic establishment or has any sort of major Democratic establishment backers. Just a small town Pennsylvania girl trying to make good in this crazy, mixed-up world) and you want to get back at all those mean boys.
<
p>There’s just one way to do it– keep Barack Obama, who has a long history of not supporting Hillary Clinton for President, out of the White House. It’s genius! Pure, f*cking genius!
<
p>Put John McCain in the White House and wipe that smirk off of Barack’s face and Teddy’s face and Kerry’s and Deval’s and all those boys. And then turn to your daughters and tell them–
<
p>”Daughters, we won! We showed all those mean, nasty men what happens when they support another candidate who is not Hillary Clinton! What a day this is…oh shit…oh f*ck…did we really just help get John McCain elected President…anti-choice John McCain…anti-equal pay for women John McCain…anti-SCHIP John McCain…pro-100 years in Iraq John McCain…pro-Bush tax cuts for the wealthy John McCain…pro-torture John McCain…ummm…girls…we have some bad news…”
<
p>Any former supporter of Hillary’s who threatens to support John McCain– man or woman– because of some perceived mistreatment of HRC is an idiot. End of story.
But the Democratic Party and Barack Obama should not ignore this issue. Some of the women I have talked to think they have been idiots all these years for volunteering a lot of hours to work to get Ted Kennedy and John Kerry elected. Those women, however, will probably still vote the Democratic ticket. Those are not the women I am talking about. The women I am talking about are the swing voters who Barack Obama needs in order to win the White House. Rant all you want and diss them all you want (which seems to be a continuing ironic and juvenile tactic of some Obama supporters), but that is not going to address the issue.
Give me one rational reason why a former Hillary supporter would suddenly be on the fence between Obama and McCain…
<
p>There isn’t one. If someone cares an iota about choice or equal pay or the makeup of the Supreme Court or Constitutional Rights or the future of this country, then they’re voting for Obama.
<
p>If they’ve worked hard for Kennedy and Kerry and other Democratic candidates and now they’re considering for even a second whether or not to f*ck their Party and allow the Republicans to enjoy a 3rd Bush-Cheney term just because their chosen candidate won’t be the nominee or because someone they once volunteered for supported the other candidate, then they are idiotic.
<
p>And petulant. And bitter. And juevenile. And short-sighted.
<
p>And by the way, suggesting that former HRC supporters will be on the fence come November has one seriously screwed-up inherent assumption– that Hillary won’t lift a finger to make sure her former supporters suport Obama. If these voters are so strongly in HRC’s camp then shouldn’t she be able to ensure they vote the right way in November? That’s really the only problem as I see it– will Hillary actually work for Obama or will she stand on the sidelines and wait for 2012?
We could work for a Democratic Senate that will not confirm anything but top-of-the line SCOTUS appointments. Just sayin’.
After seeing too many Democrats cave in to the Alito and Roberts nominations, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s impossible to count on the Senate to protect the Constitution from the Federalist Society types.
For moderates, it is a given that any Democrat nominated is too liberal for our tastes, and that any Republican nominated is too conservative for our tastes. Therefore moderates will swing depending on, among other things, what the big issue of the election is, and whether we expect candidate A’s judgment to be better than candidate B’s, regardless of whether we agree on every blessed little policy plank. We are unlikely to put much stock in the issues that party partisians put such energy into, and upon which their activists stridently demand Ideological Purity (for example, we’re peachy with bans on partial birth abortion and parental notification, and not interested in criminalization of abortion).
<
p>Many moderates–myself included– registered as Democrats this season because of 2001-2008. That doesn’t mean we suddenly love Democrats, or want someone that pleases the progressives. It just means we’re pissed at the Repubicans at the moment.
<
p>For me, it is very unlikely that the Democratic nominee will scare me back to the GOP this year. Others’ mileage may vary, depending on how McCain is perceived after he pivots.
<
p>In short, an awful lot of independents voted in the Democratic primaries this year (i) because we are pissed at the GOP, and (ii) because that is where the contest was. That doesn’t mean that we have any sort of emotional or ideological connection with the Democratic party, and it certainly doesn’t mean that we give two shaving cream cans about the health of that party.
<
p>In other words, I think it is a fair statement that if our choice is not the nominee, then we are back in play– and this doesn’t just go for Hillary voters, as plenty of moderate independents voted for Obama. This is therefore an issue for either candidate, and is why they probably each need the other on the ticket.
<
p>Perhaps because we don’t believe BO will make a good president? There was a reason that many people didn’t vote for him the first time around – even though his followers and the media believed it was a done deal and he was the anointed king. If that was the case then why are so many people coming out to vote against him now?
<
p>
<
p>Actually, it’s reality. I hear it all the time from many different people (admittedly mostly from independents that don’t seem to share your any-dem-will-do attitude but a voting population that is crucial to any Presidential election nonetheless).
Obama or McCain.
<
p>The Dems or Independents who didn’t vote for Obama the first time around as you say almost certainly voted for another Dem- Clinton or Edwards- during primary season. That’s hardly representative of the choice Dems and Independents will have in November.
<
p>Honestly, if you’re a Hillary supporter who’s more comfortable with the thought of a McCain presidency than an Obama presidency, you probably should be posting on redmassgroup.com.
<
p>Nothing like the loser’s supporters criticizing the winner for all his damn winning.
You’ve not spent the last 8 years criticizing Bush? And speaking of bush, This my-way-or-the-highway, don’t-tread-on-my-candidate approach is very similar to the way bush and his followers act. So I see more similar to repubs in your post than in mine. But if only Obama followers can post here please change the name of the site and I’ll take my opinions (and my vote) elsewhere.
<
p>After all, you don’t need me come November right?
And I should point out that I’m not a HRC follower, I wasn’t happy with any of the candidates this year and was hoping Gore would enter the race (and if he did I would still vote for him in a second). I’m supporting HRC out of default and there’s only so far that my default vote will go.
<
p>I should also mention that while on the issues I’m not a BO fan, it’s his followers that have turned me off from him entirely.
n/t
The deal is….some of the best SCOTUS appointments were made by Republicans. So, the Roe card is kind of lame.
<
p>Sometimes, a voting block has to send a message that it will not be taken for granted, even if it’s not in its own short term best interests. The abuse that has been heaped on Hillary, and the misogynistic vitriol that has burst forth from so-called progressives is more than a little troubling. It’s KOS, it’s AirAmerica, it’s MSNBC, it’s Rep. Cohen, it’s Obama turning his back on Hillary during the State of the Union. It’s the cries for her to get out of the race….in February! It’s the crap about her welling up in NH that Jesse Jackson Jr. claimed was due to her appearance? What kind of Democrats say stuff like that? And this latest stuff with Senator Kennedy, who has enjoyed the support of women for decades despite his major league baggage and the support of the Clintons during his 1994 race with Romney is just one more log on the fire. That woman has run a gauntlet of abuse and it’s patently obvious to anyone with an eye in his/her head.
<
p>And this isn’t new. The Village Voice reported in 2005 the dramatic increase in feminist and lesbian baiting, and specifically mentions Senator Clinton.
<
p>http://www.villagevoice.com/ne…
<
p>You see – we’d be idiots if we do vote for him. “Bitch – it’s the new black.”
You say:
…You see – we’d be idiots if we do vote for him. “Bitch – it’s the new black.”….
<
p>I do see what you mean…That about says it all…and quite succinctly.
<
p>They aren’t even creative…the Roe card, again and again and anytime they want to get those cranky (but necessary) women back in line…(at the end of the line, of course.)
But Tina Fey said it on SNL, during a great skit on Hill.
<
p>And no, they’re not creative at all because we’ve been letting them get away with it for years. We’d better start running some smart, cranky women against these faux progressives.
Senator from New York? Married to former President Bill Clinton? Supported by many of the Democratic Party’s most influential and powerful personalities? Was the presumptive nominee from the second she announced her candidacy last January until the moment she came in 3rd in Iowa this January? Raised hundreds of millions of dollars? Likely to be tapped as VP or given a clear road to Senate Majority Leader? That Hillary Clinton, right?
<
p>Something tells me that Hillary Clinton can handle herself against the likes of Kos and Jesse Jackson, Jr.
who was the presumptive nominee until the media softened her up good for candidate Obama. Media bias is not a myth, Masshole.
If you are referring to the modern court, I presume that you are referring to O’Connor, Stevens, and Breyer, and not Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.
<
p>You don’t like the way Hillary’s been treated. Message received. I don’t necessarily agree with you about how significant a role misogyny has had in this race, and I’d submit that there’s been no shortage of “troubling vitriol” coming out of the Clinton universe on a number of matters, but clearly our party has an issue it needs to address.
<
p>Democrats have been brave enough to support two candidates that aren’t white males, and in doing so, we’ve brought gender and race issues to the forefront. This has been at times an unpleasant and painful dynamic, but it’s our duty as progressives to deal with these freshly opened wounds forthrightly.
<
p>Is cutting off the nose to spite the face really the right strategy here? If you think misogyny among progressives is bad, why encourage the other crowd? Their track record isn’t so hot on this topic. I don’t know that hobbling the Democratic party for another 4+ years is really going to help Democratic women’s short or long term interests. Maybe ask the Nader crowd about how 2000 has panned out for them- do they have a better seat at the table now?
<
p>It seems to me there are plenty of more constructive ways of addressing this issue than sinking the Democratic party for 4+ years. Call out members of the press who engage in bad behavior. Find people to run against elected officials who you think have compromised themselves (and if you find someone to run against Kennedy who supports Cape Wind [and is not [R]- sorry, I couldn’t bring myself to aid the Republicans in the Senate], they’ll have my vote).
<
p>Closing thoughts:
<
p>1. I am currently represented by women in the MA House (Atkins), MA Senate (Fargo), and US House (Tsongas). Until very recently, 3/5 selectmen in my town were women (it’s now 2/5). I realize we’re a bit of an outlier around here, but that’s not bad representation.
<
p>2. Gore’s treatment by the press in 2000 was incredibly unfair. I mention this b/c much of the unfair treatment aimed at Hillary is, in my estimation, a product of the MSM’s cumulative tendency to choose people they ‘like’ and ‘don’t like.’ Unfortunately, for the past few cycles, it’s been the Democratic presidential candidate that has been in the ‘don’t like’ category. And after the McCain donut incident, I fear ’08 will be no different…
I know that Obama supporters feel the same way, which is one of the reasons that the Clinton camp will need to do make nice with Obama supporters to enable her to run as VP. I am sure that if Clinton actually wants to be VP that she will make every effort to do the right thing, but it also is possible that she is not interested in the position.
<
p>I am skeptical that when push comes to shove there are really all that many Clinton supporters who are going to vote for a right-wing, 100% anti-abortion, pro-Bush Senator with obvious ignorance of the economic issues that are going to be key in this race, and who frequently shows signs of approaching senility.
<
p>This problem looks much more serious than it is because the campaign is still going and Clinton has not dropped out. Once she does, everything will change dramatically. I just hope it is sooner rather than later. Her campaign has stated she will stay in “until there is a nominee”, but hopefully they don’t mean that literal since there won’t officially be a nominee until the convention and I really don’t want to see this faux division go on for that long.
<
p>
abuse is “we don’t need you.” Rep. Cohen from TN just likened Hillary to the Glen Close character in Fatal Attraction. The message is that we can do what we want, and say what we want and you’re going to vote for us because we’re the only game in town.
<
p>Not by my estimation.
he got all po’d when Hill pooh-poohed JFK’s role in the civil rights movement.
<
p>This is the type of statement that does more to split the Party then unify it.
<
p>btw, if Barry is the Nom, I don’t think Hill should be VP. I think he should offer it to non-senator Hillary supporter like Ted Strickland or Rendell.
Swing state, Hillary supporter, preferably non-Senator. That makes for a pretty short list. I think I’d go for Strickland over Rendell. Does Bob Graham (FL) qualify?
<
p>Lincoln had his three main rivals (Chase, Seward, Bates) in his cabinet; he was able to manage it.
With few exceptions, every state on the convention floor will reflect an almost 50-50 split tilting by a handful in one direction or another.
<
p>If the Massachusetts add-on delegates elected at yesterday’s DSC meeting and the yet to declare MA Congressmen/woman reflect the will of the Massachusetts Democratic primary voters who voted overwhelmingly for Sen. Clinton, then the Massachusetts delegation will tilt decidedly to Clinton…as will Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, etc., etc…
<
p>If you stand for Clinton on the floor you will surely not be in good company…and win or lose…and proud to do so.
If you stand for Clinton on the convention floor you WILL surely be in good company and a lot of it…and win or lose…proud to do so.
<
p>(too early for typing a coherent sentence, sorry about that)
According to RCP, I count 11 entries of 48 to date (the list includes V.I., Democrats Abroad, etc.) where the split in delegates between Obama and Clinton is less than 10% of those available in a state. The 11 includes Guam.
<
p>So I dispute your premise.
<
p>In fact, the median difference in delegates (absolute value of (Obama delegates – Clinton delegates) / total delegates) across states is 21%. In 3/4 of contests, the final tally is pretty wide.
<
p>Here’s another one. If you match the states of undelegated supers to the pledged delegate counts, and presume that all supers would throw in with whomever had more pledged delegates for their state/territory, you’d end up with +98 for Obama and +78 for Clinton. These counts exclude MI, FL, the upcoming primaries, and the “45 un-named add-ons” and 2 at-large DNC positions. I also backed out TX because HRC won the primary but Obama has more TX delegates. Including best guesses for the upcoming races results in Obama +111, Clinton +86, with the same other exclusions.
<
p>The bottom line is that these numbers, like the pledged delegates and now the declared superdelegates, favor Obama.
<
p>So while Clinton delegates should certainly be proud of their candidate, I frankly question the “win or lose” part at this point.
Massachusetts is not known as a bastion of racial integration. Like WV and KY (my old home state) they have a problem voting for a African American. Thak God for Kerry Healey.
The fight is over! Let us raise our glasses and sing the old songs.
But better, let us join together and support our selected candidate. We must move beyond all the scandelous “bussing” problems.
Prove racism is dead! If Massachusetts can’t do it, who can?
<
p>Peace!!!!
So, I if I don’t vote for Obama, then I’m a racist? Is that the case you really want to make? And correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Deval Patrick African American? And wasn’t he elected Governor of Massachusetts? Exactly how many votes does it take (in your estimation) to prove someone is or isn’t a racist?
<
p>And while we’re at it… If you’re talking about the voting record of Massachusetts, then “our” selected candidate is Hillary Clinton.
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/
<
p>Saturday, May 10, 2008
Obama has taken the Superdelegate lead
Sen. Obama has taken the lead in DCW’s superdelegates count for the first time.
He picked, according to news media, 2 Superdelegates from Virgion Island, while Sen. Clinton loses 1.
<
p>Accorindg to The page
<
p>Day’s Tally: Obama 3, Clinton 0*
Obama nabs two Virgin Island supers – Kevin Rodriquez, who switched from Clinton, and Carole Burke.
Also picks up Utah DNC super Kristi Cumming after the state elects her as its add-on
Clinton gets Massachusetts DNC super Arthur Powell
<
p>Update:
The Associated Press – AP: Obama overtakes lead in superdelegates for first time
<
p>Obama: 275
Clinton: 271
I was at home today, nursing a nasty cold, but I am thrilled to hear the news at the election; balm for a weary soul, let me tell you.
<
p>Unfortunately, memories are usually pretty short. Senator Kerry may actually feel the wrath, given that he’s up for reelection. Senator Kennedy will probably skate…unless it is as you say, the famous Kennedy grip is finally loosening.
<
p>The newly-elected DNC members are not superdelegates. The only confirmed pick-up for Clinton is add-on Arthur Powell. Perhaps his election was unexpected. But unless you know who the other add-on is (and if you do I urge you to let us know who it is), then “delegates” should really be “delegate”.
The winners and losers observations were not directly related to my first statement in the post…sorry for confusion…
<
p>One confirmed/one unconfirmed extra delegate…not that hard to figure out.
that’s what I’m trying to figure out, and I’m having a mighty hard time doing it.
sometimes you just had to be there to get a handle on what’s what…
<
p>(besides, you have only been a BMGer for under 2 hours…welcome aboard)
Massachusetts was supposed to select two add-on delegates to the convention today. Powell was one. If you know who the second was, it would be helpful to Blue Mass. Group readers to post her or his name.
Attorney General Martha Coakley was elected as the other unpledged delegate.
has just posted a story on this.
I appreciate the information. Good that Coakley is uncommitted, though Powell wasn’t.
n/t
Your delegate math is a little cornfused, HLP. Ms Thompson’s tenure begins the day after the convention. Ms. X. will proudly cast her vote for Barack Obama as expected. Carry on.
I was not confused about tenures.
Arthur Powell deserved this massive tribute. He works so hard for the party and us.
<
p>Congratulations!
<
p>
I say this because Arthur Powell is the “co-chair of the communications committee” which communicates mostly using the internet. Every single SDC member has heard of and from Arthur many, many times – but which one of them corresponds via e-mail with Treasurer Cahill? I say this albeit I personally voted for Cahill. Why? Well:
<
p>1. I believed Cahill when he said he was neutral, and I went to the SDC meeting wearing my John Edwards button [so there!]
<
p>2. I like and admire the work Cahill has done.
<
p>3. I knew that Powell was not truely unpledged and when I vote for an un pledged delegate I really WANT that un pledged delegate to be TRULY unpledged.
<
p>Granted, I was in a minority – but I am a vocal minority.
Can’t agree with you on this one
<
p>Nice quote to try to save face for the Constitutional Officer who got trounced but reality is there was little support for Cahill and Powell worked for the win.
<
p>Activists are tired of elected officials (fill in the blanks _ _ _ _ _ ) who make no effort to connect with the base. Why the hell should we be working harder for them than they are willing to work for themselves or us?
<
p>Also, Coakley might think hard about alienating the pro-Clinton woman base as she heads toward Denver. It’ not what she’s doing (everyone loves Martha) it’s what she’s not going and saying that might bite her in the future. She’s a little to safe and stoic. Therese Murray has been out there slugging for her candidate to her great credit.
<
p>Art deserved the win, congratulations! It’s great seeing hard work and passion trump complacency…
I arrived at 9:00 AM. Voting did not end until 6:30 PM. Do the math.
<
p>Thanks to Bobby Hanes and the AFL/CIO for good Pizza and to Rep. Linda Dorcena Forry for the great Green Hills Bakery scones & toppings. It was a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooonng days voting.
<
p>Ed Quinn is to be amended for his time in the dungeon [ooops I mean “counting room”] and so many others for their hard work, as well.
I’ve heard that “amending” hurts.
Late posting and fat finger syndrome.
<
p>The intent was to thank, but yes, Ed worked very very hard.
By my simpleton survey, the DSC is at least two-to-one in favor of Clinton. So was it really “unexpected” that the “unpledged” slots would go to her? I’m surprised that there wasn’t a motion from the floor to censure all of the Obama delegates because of their disloyalty to the Democratic party. As it is, they wasted everyone’s time with a meaningless motion about seating the MI and FL delegates.
Was there an actual vote on that motion? (I could not stay beyond a torturous 9 hours)
The meeting ended before 7PM. I think that the motion was tabled, but I really wasn’t paying attention because it was meaningless!
There was a vote to table. It failed. Looking around at the voters in the standing vote on whether or not to table, I would characterize it as divided along Obama and Clinton lines. I don’t have the exact language of the motion, but it was a “sense of the meeting” motion in support of ensuring that the Michigan and Florida delegates have a voice.
Reality:
In your “simpleton survey” where do you put the PLEO delegates elected yesterday?
There was nothing that the heavily Hillary favoring DSC could do to keep the Obama pledged PLEOs from getting elected. Each camp got their proper proportion.
It was my impression that Deval (top Obama supporter) installed his own folks to lead the DSC after his election…guess the membership hasn’t caught up with that yet…surely the MA Democratic Presidential Primary voters haven’t…
<
p>Realitybased, did you predict who the undeclared, fence-sitting MA Congressional delegates (Tierney, Markey, Olver, Tsongas) will side with (probably after it does not matter)???
I was also present. I was the only SDC member there wearing a John Edwards 08 button. The reason Arthur Powell won was in large part that he is co-chariman of the Communications Committee to the 400 member SDC and pretty much EVERYONE hears from Arthur more then once a week, over a period of years.
<
p>As it happened, I voted for Cahill because I believed then and now he was “truly unpledged” and when I vote for an unpledged delegate, I want that delegate to actually be unpledged.
<
p>Nothing against Arthur, who is definitely a work horse volunteer, and class act.
<
p>But the reality is that most SDC members really did know Arthur personally because of his role in the Communications Committee.
<
p>Further, my desire that the “superdelegate ad-on” actually BE unpledged was probably a minority desire.
<
p>For the two “camps” the unpledged delegate was probably viewed as a prize to be won.
<
p>That all being said, I hope to see the Obama camp courteously courting the Clinton camp – and the Clinton camp courteously courting the Obama camp because EITHER we all work together like grown ups or we will have president McSame McSaber and more years of the United States sliding into fascism.
<
p>As it is – there is a terrible mess and muddle to clean up on the national level and it WILL take all of us – not just one hobbled camp or the other.
there may be unspoken, undeclared, un-outloud committed…but there was no one in the IBEW Hall yesterday who does not know exactly who they are really supporting (and voted for in the Primary last March)…
<
p>Yes, some felt bad for Arthur that he did not bring enough votes to his own CD caucus to win a delegate spot there (he came in 3rd) and they tried to throw him support yesterday for his statewide efforts…it worked out in a good way for poor Arthur and for Clinton. (Even though it was an embarrassment to Cahill who clearly has some work to do if he has any illusions about higher statewide office)
How “Democrat” of you.
about calling it as you see it? HLP makes a good point. It IS an embarrassment to Mr. Cahill to have lost and it isn’t petty to point it out. Some of the statewide office holders get way too full of themselves and forget the grassroots. And did you see the Globe article about the Lottery today? Yeah. Tim’s got troubles.
I’d put Tierney and Olver in the Obama column and Tsongas and Markey with Clinton.
<
p>The governor is the titular head of the Massachusetts Democrats, so I think it reasonable that Deval’s choice for Chairman be accepted pro forma.
<
p>As for the membership “catching up”, I would point towards the long list of 20-year members (look at the seat type). I’m too lazy to count them, but I would estimate the fraction of these members, that are in for life, to be as high as 30%. It will take decades to turn this ship called the USS Massachusetts-Democrats into the 21st century.
Until recently, there were two year and four year members and they were listed as such on the web site, along with the twenty years members. Someone looking at the list knew that there were four year terms and two year terms. He then says to me, how do you get elected to a twenty year term? Before someone asks, one becomes a “life member” after serving for twenty years. The intention was to allow new people to get elected.
If Tierney does not cast a vote for Hillary Clinton he will be acting in opposition to what the overwhelming majority of his constituents wanted. The 6th CD causus for Clinton was the largest in the state. Tierney is a Salem State Alum. One of the first places Bill Clinton came to speak after his presidency was SSC and Tierney took credit for making that happen.
<
p>The safest choice for Tierney politically is to vote with the majority of his district and to vote Clinton. Tierney counts on many women to help him get re-elected time and again. His vote may not make a deciding difference in the outcome of the race, but rest assured, how he votes will not be forgotten long after this race is history.
<
p>I blogged something to this effect about Niki because I felt that if she didn’t have “vision” then I couldn’t support her.
<
p>I have moved past that petty perspective.
The 6th CD caucus for Obama wasn’t small potatoes either, but that is beside the point. One of the Tierney’s best attributes is his steadfast voting on principles by following his clearly defined conscious. He obviously doesn’t do “safe”, he does what he thinks is needed to move us forward. Do you want leadersheep or leadership.
That seems kind of harsh. Can you explain that?
No, I doubt that I can explain it. And I didn’t use the word flippantly. This word is distilled from my general perception formed from the responses and reactions that I have compiled from “conversations” with DSC regulars (at the past two meetings.) Some of them are deeply entrenched in their passion for Clinton, and I think it sometimes gets the better of them. One actually tossed the word “traitor” at me. Damn it, we are all Democrats! Let’s start acting like it.
<
p>My definition and your definition of a loser must be different.
<
p>Ted ddidn’t deliver his delegate for Obahma. Big Deal. The state dem party in its current existence is for one thing only. To give Ted Kennedy a clear and esay shot every six years. It is his campaign organization. Just ask Phil. Most in the state party are clueless about this. It doesn’t bother me. It is just a fact.
<
p>This has been ita function since Ted first got elected. The Dukakoids got control of it in the 70’s and the goo goos and socialists have taken control.
<
p>Wait til Ted is gone. The party will either grow stronger because normal people may get interested and become involved (I don’t know why they would want to bother). Or it will become a joke becaue the people that run it now will have less controls on them so it will most likely implode.
My understanding is that the slates of add-on delegates to the state convention were also ratified. Are the lists available. I applied for a youth spot and given a non-gubernatorial year and neither Senate candidate courting as far as I can tell, I assume I got in just by virtue of having applied. What’s the word?
Christopher, you are indeed on the list. It was mailed to all DSC members with the meeting agenda, and should also be available on request from the MDP office. My understanding is, as is typical in non-gubernatorial years, that all add-ons who applied in time were approved.
<
p>Lesley Phillips
I received a letter signed by Tim Cahill on April 29, 2008 asking for my vote in his quest to be elected as a truly unpledged delegate. Here is the part of that letter that led to my vote for Tim Cahill:
<
p>
<
p>I did watch that John Adams miniseries. If you did not, I quite recommend it. I note that in retirement, John Adams regretted the Alien and Sedition Act, and feared that he would be remembered – and criticized for that one Act. Not being a history professor, I am not one to point out Hollywoodisms, which I am sure were there to be found. I found the series profoundly moving.
<
p>More than that, I took the time to speak with Tim Cahill yesterday. He took the time to really talk with me, too. And I was convinced that Tim meant what he wrote in his letter and valued both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama and was truly not yet committed to either one.
<
p>For what its worth, I do not regret voting for Tim Cahill for unpledged male delegate. I voted for Tim despite my respect for Arthur because I believe that Tim would have gone to the convention unpledged, and that in doing so, my wishes would be best represented by having a truly unpledged delegate.
<
p>I felt treated with respect, by both these candidates, and want to make clear that Tim sought my vote directly and honestly, and that I did NOT feel as if Tim Cahill felt he was owed my vote just because he is a constitutional officer, at all.
Amber…thanks for the excerpt from Cahill’s letter…i am sure he was not so presumptuous as to be comparing himself to Adams. So I must assumed the message he was sending was in his reference to winning a presidency by only 3 electoral votes and the importance of having every vote count. I can not disagree with him on that…
<
p>Given Florida’s electoral votes and the fact that mcCain leads Obama quite a bit in a head-to-head poll, do you think Cahill was hinting that he was for Hillary Clinton who beats McCain in FL head-to-head match-ups? or do you think he just meant we should count all of the Florida votes so that we have a shot at fighting for their electorals in the Fall?
As I presume Cahill sent the same letter to everyone [at least all the ballot members, maybe all members] on the SDC, its not like the letter is confidential, or anything. So if you want, contact me offlist [see my profile] and I will send you a copy and you can figure that out yourself. None of your questions are questions I asked Tim Cahill yesterday…so I cannot answer them today.
I’m at a loss to understand what the big surprise is in Cahill’s loss. Let’s face it, its not like he has a history of working for other Dem candidates – particularly before he won his current job. You have a dedicated, hard-working Dem in Arthur running for votes by similar minded Dem workers and then you have a quasi-Dem who’s first priority is always what’s best for himself. No shocker here – congrats to DSC voters for recognizing true effort.