USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Anyway, hopefully this will all be moot very soon...

Steve

Convention is in June

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by ryberg

On the final point there, I believe you continue to deny any such advantage to Clinton, but if so, it would seem you are increasingly alone in such a view. This NY Times article covers that point again this morning, noting:
Quote:
Clinton's list shows the extent to which she has benefited from being part of the first family of Democratic politics for more than 15 years. Her superdelegate base includes 12 senators, compared with eight for Obama, and 72 House members, compared with 62 for Obama. And she has the support of at least five former leaders of the Democratic National Committee, along with nearly 150 Democratic National Committee members, compared with 86 for Obama.

Clinton listed as superdelegates an array of past and current Democratic National Committee leaders, evidence of the extent to which she was, at least at one time, seen as the candidate of the party's establishment. Those include Robert Strauss, Joe Andrew, Steve Grossman and Ken Curtis. (The chairman of her campaign, Terry McAuliffe, is also a superdelegate by virtue of being a former party chairman.)

Clinton's superdelegates include some lions of the Democratic Party, including Walter Mondale, the former vice president, and two former House majority leaders, Richard Gephardt of Missouri and Jim Wright of Texas...
Anyway, hopefully this will all be moot very soon...

Steve

That Obama is beginning to overcome the impact of this "dynastic, first-family" influence on behalf of Mrs. Clinton is impressive and IMO further reflects the extent with which the American (Democrat) public is looking for something different beyond being a part of the "party establishment"...all the super-delegates in the world are not going to help if it is fairly clear that the "popular vote" of the Democratic party is in favor of Obama vs. Clinton...this is Obama's task and he is well on his way to accomplishing it....

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by roni

Convention is in June

Methinks earlier. Or me-certainly-hopes earlier, at least.

Originally Posted by Jacko

That Obama is beginning to overcome the impact of this "dynastic, first-family" influence on behalf of Mrs. Clinton is impressive and IMO further reflects the extent with which the American (Democrat) public is looking for something different beyond being a part of the "party establishment"...all the super-delegates in the world are not going to help if it is fairly clear that the "popular vote" of the Democratic party is in favor of Obama vs. Clinton...this is Obama's task and he is well on his way to accomplishing it....

Ditto on those points.

Yes, the seeming lack of concern upon the Clinton side for what such situations involving the superdelegates or MI & FL might mean down the road in the public eye and in terms of chances during the general election, beyond just the immediate issue, doesn't really do much to combat the common knock on them as having a win-at-all-costs kind of approach...

Steve

[ryberg]

Wait, actually the convention is in August... Primaries end in early June, which is when Clinton people now say she'll have the delegates wrapped up for the nomination. Does the Credentials Committee meet between those two?

But I think we keep forgetting something: the Democratic Party has its very own Nobel Peace Prize winner to help resolve any conflicts!

Gore emerges as power broker while Clinton hopes for a lifeline

Gore emerged yesterday as a possible mediator who could negotiate a resolution if the primary campaign ends in a stalemate and has to be decided by the party convention, where divisions are likely to run deep.

The former vice-president, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his environmental campaign, is among a number of party 'elders' who plan to remain neutral in order to keep such an option open, the New York Times reported yesterday.

They are increasingly concerned that the momentum built up by Clinton and Obama's enthralling race could be squandered if neither lands a knockout blow and the nomination is decided at the convention by an elite of 796 Democratic 'super-delegates'. A perception that a backroom deal had ignored the wishes of millions of voters could be a gift to the Republicans . . .

Steve

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Wait, actually the convention is in August... Primaries end in early June, which is when Clinton people now say she'll have the delegates wrapped up for the nomination. Does the Credentials Committee meet between those two?

But I think we keep forgetting something: the Democratic Party has its very own Nobel Peace Prize winner to help resolve any conflicts!

Steve

Ta-da! The knight in shining (green?) armor come to save the day (only if necessary of course)

[Jacko]

Lets please not give any gifts to the Republicans...

They are increasingly concerned that the momentum built up by Clinton and Obama's enthralling race could be squandered if neither lands a knockout blow and the nomination is decided at the convention by an elite of 796 Democratic 'super-delegates'. A perception that a backroom deal had ignored the wishes of millions of voters could be a gift to the Republicans . . .

[roni]

Al Gore is probably a superdel. He has a vote. His endorsement would have significant weight. He should refrain, however, from paying attention to any siren calls to be part of Howard Dean's back room deal fantasies.

[MWC]

Originally Posted by roni

Al Gore is probably a superdel. He has a vote. His endorsement would have significant weight. He should refrain, however, from paying attention to any siren calls to be part of Howard Dean's back room deal fantasies.

He has been quoted as saying he is going to remain neutral for the entire primary process. He was quoted saying he is doing so for the contingency that the DNC will need some "disinterested" power brokers at the convention.
I believe Nancy Pelosi is doing the same, for the same reason.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Ta-da! The knight in shining (green?) armor come to save the day (only if necessary of course)

You wanted him to get involved in the election, right? He's probably very happy at this point that he never endorsed anyone or got involved in any other ways more, as now he can still participate in that sort of fatherly guide, to keep the party from losing its way.

Wish I had a better idea of what was going to happen in WI. All the polls at RCP are right between 4-5 points favoring Obama, but then polls this year are not exactly very helpful. Then I saw this comment

In a sign of the intensity of the competition, Obama scheduled a rally near Appleton for Sunday after initially planning a day off. He will return to the state on Monday following a brief trip to Ohio. [source]

On the other hand, after hearing that Clinton would in fact campaign in WI after all, I read yesterday an article saying she was cutting her stay short by a day there, and the same article above similarly notes her cutting her stay short there.

So is it intensifying and/or is she eating away at his lead there or what?

Steve

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

So is it intensifying and/or is she eating away at his lead there or what?

Steve

We'll get all the important information on the day they hold the primary election. Patience grasshopper, patience

[roni]

Originally Posted by MWC

He has been quoted as saying he is going to remain neutral for the entire primary process. He was quoted saying he is doing so for the contingency that the DNC will need some "disinterested" power brokers at the convention.
I believe Nancy Pelosi is doing the same, for the same reason.

That is what I am saying they should avoid. Without powerbrokers,there is no back room/smoke filled room deals. Let the convention make the decision.

[ryberg]

Yes, working on those patience muscles.

The back-room deals always struck me as the Clinton camp's fantasy rather than Howard Dean's (whose fantasy would more likely be the lack of need of any special attention). Their the ones who want a reversal on MI & FL and favor superdelegates being able to override the popular vote results, no? So...

Of course, it wouldn't be the first time I've not understood your view, if that's what is happening here.

Steve

[MWC]

Originally Posted by roni

That is what I am saying they should avoid. Without powerbrokers,there is no back room/smoke filled room deals. Let the convention make the decision.

I would think the super delegates could wield a bit of clout out on the floor, no?

[ryberg]

Ah, your answer posted while I was pondering, there.

I think I see the distinction you're trying to make, now, but I also think you may be splitting hairs the public is not going to split. Whether made on the convention floor or beforehand, a reversal that overrides the popular decision by suddenly saying (as Horizon put it), Whoops, sorry -- we were just kidding on MI & FL all along and now they count again! is going to look like cheating, whether it's made in a back room filled with smoke or on a convention floor filled with smoke. And I submit that the same goes for the possibility of superdelegates overturning the popular vote. Either way, people will look and say, Hey, WTF?!? The machinery and the powers that be in this party just overturned what the people went for in favor of the establishment candidate!

I could be wrong, of course, but FWIW, I think you'd find a resounding outcry no matter where such moves were made...

Steve

[MWC]

Good article from the AP wire:

Democrats: What Clinton Must Do to Win
2008-02-17 11:49:43
By NANCY BENAC Associated Press Writer



WASHINGTON (AP) — Ask a dozen die-hard Democrats around the country what Hillary Rodham Clinton can do to beat Barack Obama and win the presidential nomination and they have plenty of ideas — some of them contradictory.

The question generates strong sentiment, though, that Clinton simply can't compete on charisma, that there are forces at play beyond her control. Going negative could backfire, they warn. Laying out nitty-gritty policy details isn't enough, they say.

There's no shortage of advice, but also no shortage of head-scratching. Add it all up, and there doesn't appear to be a secret plan to save her candidacy.

A sampling of Democratic voices from the field:

—SHOW PASSION: "The challenge for Hillary Clinton is to be seen as an agent of change, to recapture the passion that the people who support her really have for her," says Kari Chisholm, a political consultant in Oregon who blogs at BlueOregon: progressive politics, news, and commentary for Oregon. "I'm not sure that I'd want to be in the shoes on her team. ... She's considered the same old, same old, and she's not. But she's having trouble communicating that." Chisholm said Clinton should hit her universal health care message harder, stop using Washington insiders to defend her on cable TV and "find a way to communicate some excitement." Chisholm supported John Edwards, and says he could go either way between Clinton and Obama.

—IT'S THE ECONOMY. AGAIN: "HRC's firewall must be predicated on message," says Chris Lehane, a political consultant in California and former aide to President Clinton. "She is THE candidate who the public, press and pundits by instinct, temperament and history believe is the best on the economy at the exact time the economy is THE brooding, omnipresent force hovering over both the primary and general electorate." Lehane is backing Clinton.

—GO NEGATIVE: "She needs to come in strong," says Judy Carpenter, a third-grade teacher from Delaware, Ohio, who turned out at a Clinton rally at Ohio State last week. "I don't like vicious attacks. But gosh darn, she needs to call him on some things." Carpenter supports Clinton.

—MAYBE NOT: A candidate goes negative "at great risk," says Mitch Ceasar, the party chairman in Florida's Broward County. "You can alienate people. It's less of a risk for Republicans, because they're better at it and everybody expects it from them." Clinton, he says, should "talk about the distinctions" between herself and Obama on the issues .

—DEFINITELY NOT: Going negative "positively would be the absolutely wrong thing to do," says Ed Treacy, a former county party chairman in Indiana. "Democrats do not want to see them fighting at all. ... I'm not sure what she can do. So much of it is his momentum." Treacy hasn't endorsed a candidate.

—THE FORCE: "The most important thing is that the force is with Obama," says Glenn Browder, a former Alabama congressman and now professor emeritus at Jacksonville State University. "The election seems to be moving in his favor, and I don't believe that issues have much to do with it right now. It's not as if she could all of a sudden start pointing this or that out about his positions or his votes, and that would change things very much. He is a movement that goes beyond issues." Going negative could backfire on Clinton, Browder says, but it might help if the media or independent groups took on Obama. Browder is neutral in the race.

—REMEMBER IRAQ: "If she could come up with a more specific war plan," says Marcia Mainord, president of Texas Democratic Women. "That's what I hear people talking about. Who's going to end the war." Mainord is personally supporting Clinton but hasn't made a formal endorsement.

—BE YOURSELF: "She's a very engaging, very warm person if she lets that side of her be seen," says Warren Tolman, a former Massachusetts state senator. "There's a very warm, compassionate side that isn't often enough seen." Three things Clinton should do, according to Tolman: "Be yourself. Show compassion. Look like she's having fun." Tolman has endorsed Obama.

—READY TO DELIVER: "There is a narrative to be told that she hasn't quite put all together," says Tom Swan, who directs a citizen action group in Connecticut. "But she's close, on health care and her experience and her scars make her the one who can deliver now." Swan voted in the Connecticut primary but hasn't publicly endorsed anyone.

—GRASS-ROOTS ORGANIZE: "I am obsessive about precinct-based organizing," says Michael Dukakis, the 1988 Democratic nominee who lost to George H.W. Bush. "We've got to get serious about this stuff. It's not just money and media." Dukakis, teaching a course this winter at UCLA, says Obama has done more local organizing than Clinton. He adds that neither candidate should be faulted for failing to do much of it in Ohio and Texas, which vote March 4, because no one thought the nomination race would extend beyond Super Tuesday. Dukakis hasn't endorsed a candidate.

—STEADY AS SHE GOES: "You've got a strategy, stick with the strategy," says Jim Crog, a longtime party operative in Florida. "Ride it and make it work. One of the most detrimental things a campaign can be involved in is a what-if campaign: What if we do this? What if we do that? You'll be literally bouncing around the room and off the walls." Crog hasn't endorsed a candidate.

—McCAIN FACTOR: "She's got to convince Democrats that, contrary to what the polls now show, that in the end she's going to be a better candidate against John McCain," says Garry South, a longtime Democratic operative in California. Can she still win the nomination? "Unfortunately, I don't think there is a secret formula," says South. "There comes a time when the worm turns, when the momentum shift is clear. And when that sort of thing happens, there just aren't a lot of options for the candidate who is trailing at that point." South hasn't endorsed a candidate.