Does anyone who keeps close track of endorsments (4.00 / 1)

really think that Obama is an 'outsider'? 

---

by: Valatan @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 18:28:59 PM CST

Ned Lamont (4.00 / 1)

I just want to preempt several of the types of posts I have seen on Daily Kos by pointing out that while, yes, John Edwards gave more support to Lamont in '06 than Obama, this is not that odd, as it currently seems next-to-impossible for Edwards to get the nomination, so Lamont, as a realist, has probably calculated that Obama would be a better, more progressive alternative to Hillary Clinton, which I doubt even the most intense of Edwards supporters can really deny without ignoring facts. As a previous Edwards supporter (now a bit unsure as a result of JRE's inability to gain momentum), I really don't think this is that big of a deal, as an endorsment like this, as this point in the game, would have helped Edwards little, but CAN help Obama, so it just makes political sense (and if you think it isn't a coincidence that Lamont waited this long until the field was thinner, then you are simply naive).

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

---

by: JewishJake @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 18:31:05 PM CST

Once again the 'Kool-Aide' effect is being felt... (0.00 / 0)

.......this is classic 'sphere blather and, further, sounds just like something PumpkinHaid would say:

...as it currently seems next-to-impossible for Edwards to get the nomination.

No less an 'authority' than Jerome says: 'This is a race.' and yet....

Here we are again. Obama the Magnificent is inevitable. Bah...

Not all the 'sheeple' are among the teeming masses. Some are on line.

I supported Lamont, his signed thank you letter is on my 'wall of fame', that don't mean I think his endorsement is worth spit.

It ain't.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 18:45:46 PM CST

Not trying to start a flame war... (0.00 / 0)

Now, I have seen how questioning people can turn into huge fights, so do understand, I am not saying this with sarcasm in my voice, or attacking your credibility, but I would like to know, why you don't think this "endorsement is worth spit"? I mean, you can disagree with his choice, but for what reason do you think it is not that important or won't have much of an effect on many progressive Democrats?

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

---

by: JewishJake @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 18:51:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Reminds me of how McCain hugged Bush after he was screwed by the latter... (0.00 / 0)

Sort of disappointing...I wonder if he would have really stuck with his "change" position if he had been elected....

---

by: 3dogs @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 18:47:53 PM CST

Re:Change (0.00 / 0)

Once again, read the thing I wrote up there. This is a tactical move based on the best way in his mind to advance Progressive ideals. Also, I am not sure if this is such an apt comparison, as it isn't going against his perceived ideology (as "centrist" McCain did in endorsing Bush), and Obama never flat out slandered Lamont, he just didn't campaign as much as he had promised (this is no where near as bad as the horrible rumors Bush spread about McCain, no matter how you want to view it).

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

---

by: JewishJake @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 18:53:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama again?!? (0.00 / 0)

Clearly Lamont's endorsement of Obama means we were wrong about him all along -- not Obama, but Lamont! Lamont is obviously pretty conservative and does not share our values.

---

by: BradODonnell @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 18:54:34 PM CST

I doubt that too many endorsements will occur (0.00 / 0)

Yes in the two days leading up to NH, lots of people were asking to endorse Obama.  But now I suspect that many have backed out, saying they have to wait and see, for their constituents' sakes.

And no, I don't think that too many endorsements could possibly be a problem.  Clinton can never be seem as the alternative to the establishment candidate.

That said, an endorsement like one from ultra-Bush Dog Ben Nelson would be a negative.  If the Obama campaign doesn't have many endorsements to announce, look for that one soon.

---

by: benjamins @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 19:17:54 PM CST

Could someone please explain superdelegates to me? (0.00 / 0)

How come, when there have been only two races, IA and NH, Hilary has 100 superdelegates?

Where does that come from??

---

by: JC @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 19:40:23 PM CST

Superdelegates (0.00 / 0)

http://en.wikipedia....

Superdelegates are delegates to a presidential nominating convention in the United States who are not bound by the decisions of party primaries or caucuses. Superdelegates are elected officeholders and party officials.

Superdelegates were first appointed in the 1970s, after control of the nomination process in the Democratic Party effectively moved out of the hands of party officials into the primary and caucus process. The aim was to accord some say in the process to people who had been playing roles in the party before the election year.

---

by: Zero @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 19:46:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks, but why does Hilary now have over 100? (0.00 / 0)

How (or who) holds these 100 superdelegates, that are already pledged to Hilary?

---

by: JC @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 19:55:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Google is my friend (0.00 / 0)

Found  this.

So there is the list. I wonder how it is apportioned? Various governors, reps, senators, and others.

Funny enough, Hilary Clinton has her own superdelegate - I think I know where THAT one is going...

Spitzer is supporting Clinton, because of the state.

I notice Kerry isn't mentioned, or Dodd.

How does this work?  Who decides?

---

by: JC @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 20:04:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Found it (0.00 / 0)

235 Democratic House members and nonvoting delegates,
49 senators,
the District of Columbia's two shadow congresspeople and
28 governors,

a total 314 in all, are automatically delegates to the convention. These "superdelegates," almost 16 percent of the 2,025 delegates (4,049 total) a candidate will need to secure the party's presidential nomination, while officially uncommitted and thus "unreplaceable", can publicly endorse a candidate, adding to his and her total. As of January 5, 2008, the totals were: Hillary Clinton 154; Barack Obama 50; John Edwards 33; Bill Richardson 19; Dennis Kucinich 1.

In addition, all members of the Democratic National Committee are automatically delegates, and there are a small number of distinguished party leaders and other unpledged delegates, leading to a total of 852 unpledged delegates.

---

by: JC @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 20:14:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The full list is at (0.00 / 0)

2008 Democratic Convention Watch. We're working on getting everybody there, all the way from Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton all the way to the Virgin Islands Gov who endorsed Obama.

DemConWatch

---

by: msn1 @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 21:47:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The two promises you cite (0.00 / 0)

are one and the same. The promise of endorsements in the days following NH is what Plouffe is talking about when he says "We expect to see a great deal of movement to Obama from superdelegates in the coming days..."

I take "coming days" to mean between now and Super Tuesday.

That said, I totally agree that he would need 50 or more endorsements from super delegates to "erode" Clinton's advantage. And even if he got 50, she'd certainly keep pace. So no erosion will happen, unless and until Obama wins both Nevada and South Carolina.

Also, among the super delegates who have yet to endorse, there are plenty of "change" folks, especially younger and freshmen Reps and Sens, who may stand with Obama.
http://demconwatch.b...

---

by: along @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 20:02:32 PM CST

the clintons???? (0.00 / 0)

is it normal for a campaigm to refer to the entire family of the opposing candidate? or is it a tittle of the lizard brain that jane h is decrying here?

http://firedoglake.c...

---

by: eqbal00 @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 22:46:40 PM CST

Kerry + Lamont = Obama? (0.00 / 0)

I realize I have been more vocal than usual, and yes I support Obama for a myriad of reasons.

Some people here have said Kerry's endorsement of Obama is the clencher proving Obama to be an insider candidate. Some have Lamont clearly is not all that progressive given that he endorse Obama.

But think about it. Lamont challenged Lieberman, a high-ranking Democrat. Kerry is as establishment as they come. And yet Obama got both of their votes.

Does this not suggest that Obama and his candidacy is more complex than insider/outsider, liberal/conservative?

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:51:22 AM CST