Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on About That Obama Event

1

You guys keep saying it was 18,000, but the Key Arena holds 27,000 people in seats and another 1000 on the floor. It was 28,000 people. Please make appropriate edits.

Posted by Carollani | February 8, 2008 5:17 PM
2

Carollani, the Obama campaign's official estimate of the attendance is 18,000 inside and 3,000 outside.

Posted by Eli Sanders | February 8, 2008 5:23 PM
3

Eli, I don't understand your question. If Obama saw Jim McDermott, the first thing he should say is "Hi Jim, I'd appreciate your vote!" The End.

He's providing a reason why he thinks superdelegates should vote for him, but Jim and others will make up their own minds.

This doesn't seem complicated. Or am I missing something?

Posted by me | February 8, 2008 5:27 PM
4

Oh yeah, you're right. Capacity is 17072—I've been lied to. Heh.

Posted by Carollani | February 8, 2008 5:28 PM
5

"Yes, ok, peace Jim. But how are you going to vote?"

It seems to me that Jim answered your question:

"For the last few days there has been a lot of speculation about where public officials, including me, stand with respect to the candidates for president. I think we need to focus on your endorsements."

Interpretation? "I'll endorse according to the outcome of the Caucus." Seems pretty clear to me. He won't go against the public will, though naturally I would prefer he endorsed Obama beforehand, just to give him that much more of a boost.

Also: I read somewhere that he's beholden somewhat to the Clintons for helping him out with legal fees related to a tiff with Boehner. Perhaps he is waiting to use his State's professed support of Obama so he can then follow suit without losing face with the Clintons.

*Shrug*

Posted by doctiloquus | February 8, 2008 5:34 PM
6

The estimate of 3,000 people outside is only the number who waited around.

Thousands more of us left to go back to work, to home, to lunch, or wherever our day took us.

Posted by Always voting | February 8, 2008 5:38 PM
7

@2 - no, way more than 3,000 outside - I've done crowd control before.

5,000 minimum at Noon on each side - and more later.

Many thousands left as A.v. said - I passed them coming in.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 8, 2008 5:40 PM
8

Think through this "follow your state" principle for superdelegates a/k/a "if you don't vote the way your state votes, we're going to complain a lot."

It means that all the superdelegates from CA, MA, TN, and NJ -- even those who've announced for Obama -- should vote for....Clinton.

It means that if MO flips on a recount then flips again, Sen. McCaskill (currently for Obama) should flip to Clinton then bakc to Obama then back to Clinton according to tiny swings in the counts after each recount.

It means all FL and MI superdelegates should be for Clinton, because the voters in those states favored Clinton. THEY didn't sign anything giving away their right to vote.

And more:

since Clinton won more votes on supertuesday shouldn't all superdelegates of the supertuesday states be for Clinton?

Why should superdelegates go on a winner take all basis when the pledged delegates don't? If they did, Hillary would be far ahead right now after sweeping most of the biggest states.

Obviously this call for McDermott to vote the way Seattle or WA does is just an ad hoc unprincipled call to help Obama. Because you don't hear the same people calling on all the CA superdelegates to be for Clinton.

You bet it is.

Posted by unPC | February 8, 2008 5:45 PM
9

@8 You've posted this screed on several threads now. You're becoming a troll.

Posted by Mike of Renton | February 8, 2008 6:28 PM
10

unPC, as an Obama supporter, I believe the super delegates should represent the wishes of the people. so, i have no problem with CA super delegates going to Clinton. The whole system is antiquated. Needs an overhaul, as does this state's process; should be a primary.

Posted by Tony | February 8, 2008 6:36 PM
11

"since Clinton won more votes on supertuesday shouldn't all superdelegates of the supertuesday states be for Clinton?"


um..

Posted by politically incorrect | February 8, 2008 6:40 PM
12

In this sort of political rumble - fair is the word used when your horse gets some advantage.

Eli is showing wonk wonk instead of savvy to the sort of contest he is observing and reporting.

50 states - hence almost 50 systems. Some very fair, some hometown rigged, some city rigged - some are clean some are dirty.

Much is "party driven by self serving independant entities" - some are election laws made by ancient legislative debate, more current with all that might entail. There are No Gold Plates or Moses Dicates anywhere in sight.

Get it Eli? Send us some good coverage as you are so very capable, let the national blather sellers heap this shit out there.

SLOGGERS NEED YOU, YES YOU ....

Posted by ida mae | February 8, 2008 6:53 PM
13

Exqueese me? I heard it was more like 25,000, SRO, with additional people crammed around all entrances hoping to get inside (and didn't).

Posted by K | February 8, 2008 7:03 PM
14

Interesting. Obama's answer is one that would alienate superdelegates who were made aware of it.

And if they accepted his proposal (which they won't), it would lose him the nomination (whether we apply it by districts, or by states).

Posted by RonK, Seattle | February 8, 2008 8:21 PM
15

It's a bird! It's a plane! It's SuperDelegate! Able to overturn election results in a single bound!

Posted by RainMan | February 8, 2008 8:47 PM
16

@ 8 If superdelegates must get involved at all, the only way that would even appear fair would be for each to wait until their state voted and go with that result.

We voted the folks in so they could be superdelegates. Each superdelegate is worth 10,000+ regular votes in the final tally, plus they each get their personal vote.

The whole system was put in place so the party could control the rabblesrousing grassroots. It sucks swamp water.

But since they're there, they should vote with their state or in the case of Reps with their district.

The party official superdelegates should not vote at all or should go with the national popular vote.

And McDermitt is doing the right thing. Wait until we vote and support our choice no matter who that should be.

We absolutely do not want another Supreme Court Bush -v- Gore hard feelings split the party moment.

Posted by G Davis | February 8, 2008 9:01 PM
17

Obama as bad ass - sorry - don't cut it

I support Hillary and I am as Queer as they come from first grade on.

She will do a battle not just a campaign.

Mc Cain will come out swinging - SOON -
Glama Bama will crumple when the bill boards appear about his coke habit as a boy scout...... what ever ...... there is no new dirt on Hillary and most of it is so ancient and contrived.

Who ever wins the next round of BIG states will be nominated, Penn. Texas. And I am betting on old time Dem. women now that the battle is real.

Sweet non registed, non voting kids, the dream of the youth cult, and youth marketing, nada.

Posted by Kenneth | February 8, 2008 9:09 PM
18

Did the middle ages, so long ago, Children's Crusades take back the Holy Land?

Posted by zak - undecided | February 8, 2008 9:17 PM
19

The whole point of superdelegates is that they are not picked subject to the results of the caucuses or primaries in their states. The intent is to provide balance to (or overrule) the voters if they pick someone too far outside what the parties deem to be acceptable. To consider them as some kind of bonus points for winning the state is the opposite of that. Obama's remarks seem to be in line (mostly) with that reasoning, saying that the superdelegates should put aside their own states' votes and instead pay attention to the factors he listed: the national (not state-by-state) vote count, the pledged delegate count, beating McCain and expanding the Party.

Posted by Quincy | February 8, 2008 9:59 PM
20

Jim McDermott has acted on the will of his constituency for many years now, and I (we) thank him for it by re-electing him as many times as we have. He wouldn't be where he is today if he didn't listen to the people who live in his district, and we thank him for it.

Jesus, Eli, how long have you lived here? Don't you know that Baghdad Jim is a local institution? Of course he'll go with what we decide. He did it on Iraq, and he'll do it after tomorrow.

Posted by Hernandez | February 8, 2008 10:53 PM
21

There's always the possibility that he's proud that his state and his district will have a role to play in the primary process and his local pride means that he wants as much of his community as possible to stand up and be heard. As a democratically elected official he might just have some admiration for election day and a desire not to displace its importance.

I know, it's not the hip, cynical view, but there's always the chance that it might be true.

Posted by Kevin Lyda | February 9, 2008 12:23 AM
22

What Hernandez @ 20 said.

Get over yourself, Eli. Jim doesn't owe you an explanation just because you want to hear it when you want to hear it.

Posted by ivan | February 9, 2008 8:40 AM
23

The superdelegates can vote for anyone they want. They are not bound by the vote in their state, the wishes of Eli Sanders or Annie Wagner, or really, anything. Jim will vote the way he wants to vote. Deal with it.

Posted by J.R. | February 9, 2008 8:46 AM
24

Not only will he go with what we decide, but if it's close he'll go with what the under-30s decide. So probably Obama.

Posted by Phoebe | February 9, 2008 10:20 AM
25

Jim McDermott has one of the safest seats in Congress. No Republican opponent is going to unseat him in this district regardless of who he endorses.

Posted by RainMan | February 9, 2008 10:30 AM
26

So yeah, you went to the other appearance. You got close to being called on. And yeah, you got to go to middle America for the early states.

But you will always be that one guy who glorified Chris Crocker. Sorry, fool.

Posted by Non | February 9, 2008 11:01 AM
27

Well, good. I'm glad McDermott isn't going to be replaced by some GOP fake warrior who's making hay off military contracts. Jim was right about Iraq.

Posted by isabelita | February 9, 2008 2:57 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).