News and Current Events

TRIPLE CROWN: Obama Now Takes The Lead in Superdelegates Too

ABCnews.com
May 09, 2008 6:19 AM

OBAMA TAKES THE TRIPLE CROWN: PLEDGES DELEGATES, POPULAR VOTES, AND SUPERDELEGES. ALSO LEADS IN STATES WON AND MONEY RAISED

ABC News’ Karen Travers Reports: For the first time this campaign season, Barack Obama has surpassed Hillary Clinton’s support among superdelegates, according to the ABC News delegate estimate. 

Sen. Obama, D-Ill., picked up two superdelegates this morning giving him a new metric to tout in addition to his current commanding leads in pledged delegates, popular votes, states won, and money raised.

Rep. Donald Payne, D-N.J., switched his endorsement from Clinton to Obama and Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., endorsed Obama. DeFazio was previously uncommitted.

With these endorsements, Obama has the support of 267 superdelegates and Clinton has 265 superdelegates.

Every news organization’s superdelegate count is a little different because it is an imperfect science. Since October 2007, the Political Unit has continuously reached out to the nearly 800 superdelegates to determine their candidate preference. We also reach out regularly to the Obama and Clinton campaigns for their superdelegate lists and work to confirm any that they include on their lists.

Clinton’s advantage among superdelegates was once massive and has been dwindling steadily since Super Tuesday, when she was ahead by over 60 superdelegates.

Clinton’s institutional support from within the Democratic Party allowed her to build a commanding lead in superdelegates over Obama in the early part of this nomination battle.

Despite several rough weeks on the campaign trail, Obama has maintained momentum in picking up superdelegates. Obama has outpaced Clinton at every marker of this campaign since Super Tuesday—after the controversial comments of Rev. Wright came out, after Clinton’s big win in Pennsylvania and after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/obama-now-takes.html

Clinton Rejects Latest Michigan Delegate Plan

CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
May 8, 2008 – 1:29 p.m.
By Marie Horrigan, CQ Staff

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday rejected a compromise plan to seat Michigan’s delegates to the national convention that would give 69 delegates to Clinton and 59 to Barack Obama .

“This proposal does not honor the 600,000 votes that were cast in Michigan’s January primary. Those votes must be counted,” Clinton spokesman Isaac Baker said.

The Michigan Democratic Party had approved the plan and intended to submit it to the Democratic National Committee meeting on May 31. Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer said in a statement that the plan was a “good step toward a solution that unites Democrats and ensures that our state will not face a McCain presidency.”

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) had stripped Michigan of its delegation to the Democratic National Convention because the state party scheduled its Jan. 15 primary in violation of national party rules. Several plans have been proposed to find a way to seat Michigan’s delegation.

Clinton’s campaign has maintained that the delegation should be allocated according to the vote in the Jan. 15 primary (73/55) but Obama’s campaign had argued the delegation should be split between the two candidates (64/64) because he was not on the ballot. Clinton won that contest with 55 percent of the vote but most of the other major party candidates, including Obama, had removed their names from the ballot because the state violated national party rules.

Since any plan must be approved by all the players — the state and national parties and both candidates—it is unclear what will happen now.

The Michigan Democratic Party’s Executive Committee on Wednesday had endorsed the 69/59 plan offered April 29 by a group of senior Michigan Democrats including Sen. Carl Levin , Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick , UAW President Ron Gettelfinger and DNC member Debbie Dingell.

Elizabeth Kerr, a spokeswoman for the Michigan Democratic Party, said the Clinton campaign’s assertion that the votes “weren’t honored” was “incorrect.”

“This proposal honors the result of the January 15th primary but also takes into consideration that Obama’s name was not on the ballot,” she said.

If the state party ends up offering the plan to the national party, the DNC would consider it at the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting in Washington on May 31. The DNC did not have any comment on the plan.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who has endorsed Clinton, said the former first lady would not make any decision about the future of her campaign until the status of the Michigan and Florida delegations had been settled at the May 31 meeting. The Democratic National Committee stripped Florida of its delegates to the national convention because the state legislature set the primary for Jan. 29 in violation of national party rules.

Some Democrats have pushed Clinton to consider suspending her campaign, particularly after her narrow victory in Indiana and her heavy loss to Obama in North Carolina during the primaries Tuesday.

“She’s going to make the decision when the time comes,” Feinstein said.

Mich. Dems settle on delegate-seating plan to bring to DNC

Huffingtonpost.com, Kathy Barks Hoffman, May 7, 2008

LANSING, Mich. — Michigan Democratic leaders on Wednesday settled on a plan to give presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton 69 delegates and Barack Obama 59 as a way to get the state’s delegates seated at the national convention.

Clinton “won” the Jan. 15 Michigan primary and was to get 73 pledged delegates under state party rules, while Obama was to get 55. The state also has 29 superdelegates.

The state party’s executive committee voted Wednesday to ask the national party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee to approve the 69-59 delegate split when it meets May 31. The plan would allow the state’s 157 delegates and superdelegates to be seated at the convention.

A separate plan submitted to the rules committee by Democratic National Committee members Joel Ferguson of Michigan and Jon Ausman of Florida, both superdelegates, apparently will be withdrawn now that the Michigan executive committee has settled on the 69-59 plan. Under their proposal, delegates would have been allocated based on the primary election results, but have had only half a vote each. The superdelegates would have had full voting rights.

The DNC stripped Michigan and Florida of their convention delegates - 366 in all, including pledged delegates and superdelegates - for holding their primaries too early in the nominating process, which violated party rules.

The 69-59 split was proposed last week by four prominent Michigan Democrats who have been working for months to find a way to get Michigan’s delegates seated at the Aug. 25-28 convention in Denver: Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger, Sen. Carl Levin and DNC member Debbie Dingell, wife of Rep. John Dingell.

State party Chairman Mark Brewer said he thinks the state is closer to reaching a solution agreeable to the candidates and state and national party officials, although there is no guarantee that the rules committee will accept the plan or agree to seat the delegates.

“This does move the process forward in terms of stating our own position to the DNC,” Brewer said Wednesday after the meeting.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said of the decision, “It is clear results in January won’t be used to allocate delegates, and we agree with that decision. We have been talking with Michigan leaders about this proposal and will continue to do so.”

Clinton spokesman Isaac Baker said the campaign expects a quick resolution. “The bottom line is that the delegates from Michigan and Florida must be seated,” he said in a statement released Wednesday night.

Trailing in delegates, Clinton and her campaign have been pressing for her wins in Florida and Michigan to be recognized and the delegates seated. Obama, who wants to preserve his lead, has suggested other solutions such as splitting the delegates evenly.

Obama joined several candidates who removed their names from Michigan’s ballot, and Clinton and Obama agreed not to campaign in either state.

Meanwhile, former President Carter said Wednesday that delegates from Florida and Michigan should not be counted at the Democratic National Convention because they “disqualified themselves.” He warned of a disaster if party insiders try to wrest the nomination from the candidate with the largest number of votes and state victories.

An attempt by so-called Democratic superdelegates to override the popular vote “would be an almost unacceptable thing,” Carter told Jay Leno on “The Tonight Show.”

If a candidate has a clear edge in votes, state-by-state wins and delegates claimed at caucuses and primaries, “I can’t imagine that the superdelegates would go against them,” Carter said. “It would be a catastrophe for the party.”

Carter’s comments came a day after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, in which Obama padded his delegate lead over Clinton. In the tight race the judgment of superdelegates _ elected officials and party insiders who can vote as they like at the party’s August nominating convention _ will almost certainly be decisive.

Carter, a superdelegate, has not expressed a preference in the race but has hinted that he supports Obama.
___
On the Net:
Michigan Democratic Party: http://www.michigandems.com
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080507/primary-scramble/

The Five Mistakes Clinton Made

Time.com. by Karen Tumulty
Thursday, May. 08, 2008

For all her talk about “full speed on to the White House,” there was an unmistakably elegiac tone to Hillary Clinton’s primary-night speech in Indianapolis. And if one needed further confirmation that the undaunted, never-say-die Clintons realize their bid might be at an end, all it took was a look at the wistful faces of the husband and the daughter who stood behind the candidate as she talked of all the people she has met in a journey “that has been a blessing for me.”

It was also a journey she had begun with what appeared to be insurmountable advantages, which evaporated one by one as the campaign dragged on far longer than anyone could have anticipated. She made at least five big mistakes, each of which compounded the others:

1. She misjudged the mood

That was probably her biggest blunder. In a cycle that has been all about change, Clinton chose an incumbent’s strategy, running on experience, preparedness, inevitability — and the power of the strongest brand name in Democratic politics. It made sense, given who she is and the additional doubts that some voters might have about making a woman Commander in Chief. But in putting her focus on positioning herself to win the general election in November, Clinton completely misread the mood of Democratic-primary voters, who were desperate to turn the page. “Being the consummate Washington insider is not where you want to be in a year when people want change,” says Barack Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod. Clinton’s “initial strategic positioning was wrong and kind of played into our hands.” But other miscalculations made it worse:

2. She didn’t master the rules

Clinton picked people for her team primarily for their loyalty to her, instead of their mastery of the game. That became abundantly clear in a strategy session last year, according to two people who were there. As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state’s 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified — and let Penn know it. “How can it possibly be,” Ickes asked, “that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn’t understand proportional allocation?” And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories. Even now, it can seem as if they don’t get it. Both Bill and Hillary have noted plaintively that if Democrats had the same winner-take-all rules as Republicans, she’d be the nominee. Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign now acknowledges privately:

3. She underestimated the caucus states

While Clinton based her strategy on the big contests, she seemed to virtually overlook states like Minnesota, Nebraska and Kansas, which choose their delegates through caucuses. She had a reason: the Clintons decided, says an adviser, that “caucus states were not really their thing.” Her core supporters — women, the elderly, those with blue-collar jobs — were less likely to be able to commit an evening of the week, as the process requires. But it was a little like unilateral disarmament in states worth 12% of the pledged delegates. Indeed, it was in the caucus states that Obama piled up his lead among pledged delegates. “For all the talent and the money they had over there,” says Axelrod, “they — bewilderingly — seemed to have little understanding for the caucuses and how important they would become.”

By the time Clinton’s lieutenants realized the grave nature of their error, they lacked the resources to do anything about it — in part because:

4. She relied on old money

For a decade or more, the Clintons set the standard for political fund-raising in the Democratic Party, and nearly all Bill’s old donors had re-upped for Hillary’s bid. Her 2006 Senate campaign had raised an astonishing $51.6 million against token opposition, in what everyone assumed was merely a dry run for a far bigger contest. But something had happened to fund-raising that Team Clinton didn’t fully grasp: the Internet. Though Clinton’s totals from working the shrimp-cocktail circuit remained impressive by every historic measure, her donors were typically big-check writers. And once they had ponied up the $2,300 allowed by law, they were forbidden to give more. The once bottomless Clinton well was drying up.

Obama relied instead on a different model: the 800,000-plus people who had signed up on his website and could continue sending money his way $5, $10 and $50 at a time. (The campaign has raised more than $100 million online, better than half its total.) Meanwhile, the Clintons were forced to tap the $100 million — plus fortune they had acquired since he left the White House — first for $5 million in January to make it to Super Tuesday and then $6.4 million to get her through Indiana and North Carolina. And that reflects one final mistake:

5. She never counted on a long haul

Clinton’s strategy had been premised on delivering a knockout blow early. If she could win Iowa, she believed, the race would be over. Clinton spent lavishly there yet finished a disappointing third. What surprised the Obama forces was how long it took her campaign to retool. She fought him to a tie in the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday contests but didn’t have any troops in place for the states that followed. Obama, on the other hand, was a train running hard on two or three tracks. Whatever the Chicago headquarters was unveiling to win immediate contests, it always had a separate operation setting up organizations in the states that were next. As far back as Feb. 21, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe was spotted in Raleigh, N.C. He told the News & Observer that the state’s primary, then more than 10 weeks away, “could end up being very important in the nomination fight.” At the time, the idea seemed laughable.

Now, of course, the question seems not whether Clinton will exit the race but when. She continues to load her schedule with campaign stops, even as calls for her to concede grow louder. But the voice she is listening to now is the one inside her head, explains a longtime aide. Clinton’s calculation is as much about history as it is about politics. As the first woman to have come this far, Clinton has told those close to her, she wants people who invested their hopes in her to see that she has given it her best. And then? As she said in Indianapolis, “No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party because we must win in November.” When the task at hand is healing divisions in the Democratic Party, the loser can have as much influence as the winner.

Find this article at: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1738331,00.html

Feinstein to ask Clinton for her primary game plan

TheHill.com, By Manu Raju, 05/07/08

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), one of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) most prominent Senate supporters, said Wednesday that she will ask the former first lady to detail her plans for the rest of the Democratic primary.

“I, as you know, have great fondness and great respect for Sen. Clinton and I’m very loyal to her,” Feinstein said. “Having said that, I’d like to talk with her and [get] her view on the rest of the race and what the strategy is.”

Clinton, who eked out a win in Indiana Tuesday night but lost big to front-runner Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in North Carolina, has not responded to Feinstein’s phone call, the California senator said.

“I think the race is reaching the point now where there are negative dividends from it, in terms of strife within the party,” Feinstein said. “I think we need to prevent that as much as we can.”

Tuesday night’s results are widely viewed as a blow to Clinton’s hopes after she failed to deliver a “game-changing” performance. Instead, Obama extended his leads among delegates and popular votes.

Feinstein stressed that Clinton is not an “also-run candidate,” but added that there is a question “as to whether she can get the delegates that she needs. I’d like to see what the strategy is and then we can talk further.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) repeated Wednesday that he wishes to remain neutral in the race and the superdelegates should make up their minds shortly after the final primary on June 3.

As for whether Clinton has a reasonable path forward, Reid said this: “That’s not for me to judge. She has her campaign going. Obama has his going. I’m not going to be running campaigns.”

Other Clinton Senate supporters sounded more optimistic and stressed the high voter turnout as a positive for Democrats.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (Md.) said Clinton is a “fighter” and rejected the suggestion that she should quit.

“The voters aren’t sick of it — look at all the record turnouts,” Mikulski said. “It’s helped the party.”

Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.) said the tight race is not harmful to the party but warned that the contest between the two heavyweights should not become “bitter and personal” as it wraps up.

Meantime, several other Senate Democrats said Wednesday that they are detecting a shift in the race between their colleagues.

Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.), who remains uncommitted, said Tuesday night’s primary results “shifted momentum” in the contests.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), who also has not endorsed a candidate, stated that “the hill has gotten steeper” for the former first lady.

Obama supporters echoed the sentiment while being careful not to push Clinton out of the race. “It was an extraordinary win and a magnificent campaign,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy (Mass.). “I pay tribute to Sen. Clinton. She’s been making her case and doing it effectively, but the outcome is very clear for the Democratic nomination. It’s effectively Barack Obama’s nomination.”

Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.) said Clinton would have to “make her own decision.”

“Both are colleagues — they have run aggressive campaigns … but ultimately, there is going to be a winner,” Dorgan stated. “I think last night perhaps moved Sen. Obama closer to that position.”

J. Taylor Rushing contributed to this report.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/feinstein-asks-clinton-for-her-primary-game-plan-2008-05-07.html