Obama '08?

Obama, Clinton Fill Superdelegates' Wallets

The Center for Responsive Politics gave voters a lovely Valentine's Day gift on February 14 when they released this report on contributions made by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to politicians who are now some of the very men and women who could decide the Democratic nomination. Analysis quickly followed.

Do these contributions make any difference to the direction the superdelegates have now swung? The Center says so. They report:

Campaign contributions have been a generally reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take. In cases where superdelegates had received contributions from both Clinton and Obama, seven out of eight elected officials who received more money from Clinton have committed to her.

Thirty-four of the 43 superdelegates who received more money from Obama, or 79 percent, are backing him.

In every case the Center found in which superdelegates received money from one candidate but not the other, the superdelegate is backing the candidate who gave them money.

More...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-escobar/obama-clinton-fill-super_b_88114.html

Obama, Clinton Fill Superdelegates' Wallets

Campaign contributions have been a generally reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take. In cases where superdelegates had received contributions from both Clinton and Obama, seven out of eight elected officials who received more money from Clinton have committed to her.

Thirty-four of the 43 superdelegates who received more money from Obama, or 79 percent, are backing him.

In every case the Center found in which superdelegates received money from one candidate but not the other, the superdelegate is backing the candidate who gave them money.

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Obama, Clinton Fill Superdelegates' Wallets

Campaign contributions have been a generally reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take. In cases where superdelegates had received contributions from both Clinton and Obama, seven out of eight elected officials who received more money from Clinton have committed to her.

Thirty-four of the 43 superdelegates who received more money from Obama, or 79 percent, are backing him.

In every case the Center found in which superdelegates received money from one candidate but not the other, the superdelegate is backing the candidate who gave them money.

Depressing but unsurprising. Money makes the world go round... that much is the same everywhere. So much for how superdelegates have this mightily important role of voting "according to their conscience".

(Not over yet, Roxxxanne! As Obama said yesterday when asked about who would be in his Cabinet, "But I think it is fair to say that I have not been so presumptuous as to start deciding who my Cabinet members will be. I think I've got a little more work to do here in Ohio and then there's this guy named McCain.")

Many of those supers are fellow members of Congress, who Obama has contributed to their re-election campaign; a not unusual practice amongst politicians and one which is encouraged by the leadership.

So, yawn

blatham wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

maporsche wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

And they call Obama "Messianic?"


Actually, that was YOU!

Excellent point Maporche!

All seriousness aside, how ticked off are Clinton supporters by the sort of shots Roxy and her Obama pals are taking at the Clintons?

Not to pick on Roxy, but isn't there a sort of recurrent theme in evidence?

It doesn't really matter what the politics of the Other might be, it's enough that they are the Other and not favored. So Hillary and Bill get the same shite dumped on them as George Bush and Dick Cheney. Suddenly Maporche, Lola and Bipo are not a hell of a lot better than fell Finn.

It's enough to make one wonder what the tribal boundries may actually be.

Will you all go back to being swell pals after the election?

It's an interesting thing to watch and experience. I'm more than a bit embarrassed to say that it took me by surprise. That embarrassment arises out of a freshly perceived (not to mention ironic) self-stupidity... my biases led me to believe that 'our' side simply would not demonstrate this amount of bickering, pettiness, and bias-driven certainty. It's been a 'learning opportunity' if we want to put it in teacher-talk. Friend angry with friend, wives and husbands skirting the thin edges of things...

This didn't happen in the prior two primaries/elections where I've been involved in an online community such as this. So, it is something or somethings about this election which are unique and causal. I think I have a good handle on what those things are but I'll probably get in another argument with someone distant or proximate if I voice them.

But I think in the end there will be healing. Except with you, finn.

Two great candidates. Something worth arguing over.

Cycloptichorn

Each with a large, dedicated and sophisticated following. You bet.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Many of those supers are fellow members of Congress, who Obama has contributed to their re-election campaign; a not unusual practice amongst politicians and one which is encouraged by the leadership.

So, yawn

Nevertheless, those whom Obama gave more money to, went for Obama; those whom Hillary have more money to, went for Hillary. I mean, yeah sure - thats just how it works - but depressing nevertheless.

(As I'm sure you'd agree, if just for one moment you'd take off your "I'm a vigilant campaigner for Obama, ready to recognize even the slightest implication of what could possibly be interpreted as an attack and shoot it down fortwith" hat. Come on - the item was hardly an attack on Obama - it just showed that superdelegates will generally follow the money, whether it comes from Hillary or from Obama.)

To clarify:

What I'd take from the item if I were an Obama operative: OK, well thats just how it works, figures -- so lets work it the best we can. Better set aside some more money for various Congress members' reelection funds, to help "persuade" them to support Obama in their role as superdelegates.

What I take from the item as me: Depressing but unsurprising. Money makes the world go round... that much is the same everywhere. So much for how superdelegates have this mightily important role of voting "according to their conscience".

I think forums like these are a lot more enjoyable if folks just talk like the individual citizens they are, rather than as if they were here in the function of campaign operatives.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Many of those supers are fellow members of Congress, who Obama has contributed to their re-election campaign; a not unusual practice amongst politicians and one which is encouraged by the leadership.

So, yawn

Nevertheless, those whom Obama gave more money to, went for Obama; those whom Hillary have more money to, went for Hillary. I mean, yeah sure - thats just how it works - but depressing nevertheless.

(As I'm sure you'd agree, if just for one moment you'd take off your "I'm a vigilant campaigner for Obama, ready to recognize even the slightest implication of what could possibly be interpreted as an attack and shoot it down fortwith" hat. Come on - the item was hardly an attack on Obama - it just showed that superdelegates will generally follow the money, whether it comes from Hillary or from Obama.)

To clarify:

What I'd take from the item if I were an Obama operative: OK, well thats just how it works, figures -- so lets work it the best we can. Better set aside some more money for various Congress members' reelection funds, to help "persuade" them to support Obama in their role as superdelegates.

What I take from the item as me: Depressing but unsurprising. Money makes the world go round... that much is the same everywhere. So much for how superdelegates have this mightily important role of voting "according to their conscience".

I think forums like these are a lot more enjoyable if folks just talk like the individual citizens they are, rather than as if they were here in the function of campaign operatives.

No, I had that link -- it's just the chart. But there's another write up about what it all means. That's the analysis that I was looking for. As in, what are we supposed to take away from all this.

I don't think this is something you need to defend Obama from. It doesn't imply any wrongdoing.

Dreams from Obama
By Darryl Pinckney
A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win
by Shelby Steele
Free Press, 143 pp., $22.00

On a surprisingly mild January afternoon in Harlem, the day of the Democratic primary in New Hampshire, my barber predicted that Senator Barack Obama would win by a landslide. He shut off his clippers and took the floor. "We need to pull for him. I'm sick of people saying, 'They'll never elect a black president.'"

A well-groomed man perhaps in his late thirties reminded us from the chair where his thick beard was being seen to that Obama won in Iowa, which was 98 percent white, and that he was about to win in another state that was 98 percent white. He said that he was ashamed of David Patterson and Charles Rangel, "our elected black officials," for not endorsing Obama, because no matter who got the nomination, the Democratic Party couldn't win the presidency without the African-American community, and therefore it didn't matter how angry at them for not supporting Clinton during the primaries anyone might be down the road.

I was going to point out that Assemblyman Adam Clayton Powell IV had come out for Obama when an even younger man with a heavy Jamaican accent said from the chair where his head was being shaved that it all depended on how developed was your racial consciousness. This young man, the black sheet still tied around his neck, got up and preached about Obama's readiness. I thought of the scenes in Richard Wright's fiction that present the black barbershop as a place where black people reveal what they really think, because black barbershops are more private even than black bars. Denny Moe's, at 133rd Street and Frederick Douglass Boulevard, with its polished tiles, pretty receptionist, and flat-screen TV for the play-offs, looked nothing like the small corner shop of my midwestern youth, but it served the same function as a forum...

GERAGHTY: When it comes to reform, just what has Obama accomplished?


LOPEZ: Is Obama the guy you date but not marry?


HANSON: Obama is Left.


EDITORS: The Democratic party is well to the left of where it was in the 1990s.


LOWRY: Barack Obama's trade fear-mongering defines the new Democratic orthodoxy.

Obama: "[W]e're on the same team"
After a contentious day in the Democratic presidential campaign Monday, Barack Obama has called for some calm. Speaking at a press conference where he was picking up the endorsement of Sen. Chris Dodd on Tuesday, Obama said, according to the Los Angeles Times, "It is important for me as well as Sen. Clinton to communicate to our staffs as well that... we're both trying out for quarterback, but we're on the same team... I think things have gotten a little hotter over the last couple of days, but these things have gone, sort of, in ebbs and flows."

Obama was also asked about Monday's controversy over a photo showing him in traditional Somali dress that was allegedly being circulated by staffers on Hillary Clinton's campaign. "At this stage of the campaign, there are going to be dust-ups, particularly at the staff level," Obama responded. "Certainly I don't think that photograph was circulated to enhance my candidacy. I think that's fair to say. Do I think it's reflective of Sen. Clinton's approach to campaigning? Probably not."

― Alex Koppelman