Comments on Clinton Gets Another Washington Superdelegate

Hmmmm.

Norm Dicks.

Now, he doesn't know anything about politics, or who will win in November, does he?

unPC, if obama wins the pledged delegate count, and super delegates put in hillary, do you think that is good for the party and chances for november?

what he knows about politics has nothing to do with it. frankly i'm surprised there are ANY superdelegates who haven't already pledged their support for clinton. the ones who've pledged for obama should probably have someone else start their car for the next few months [that's kind of a joke. kind of.]

unPC, are you saying that political insight is the way that superdelegates vote is based solely on their political insight? are you really this naive?

Superdelegates have the right to vote any way they choose, Bellevue Ave. Just like you do.

The whole process is fucked up beyond the limits of human comprehension. Who the hell made up this twisted morass of inane rules anyway?

Another Iraq War supporter for Clinton, huzzah!

@2, @4

"if ...super delegates put in hillary, do you think that is good"

Good question. I do not know. I think it is something to consider. But there are other things to consdier, too: exclusion of Fl and MI voters; selective changes to rules on an ad hoc basis once one sees they do not favor Obama; the difficulty or impossibility of reaching consensus through telling the superdelegates to, um, give up their power (look if they see they can put her in, they'r-a gonna do it! if 5000 years of human history is any guide); and how, in general, one should not cater to the demands of sore losers.

As for "the party and chances for november" until I hear the Obamatons (a) acknowledge, and (b) give a realistic analysis of his negatives (how he is going to deal with GOP sliming relating to saying pot helped him, he did a lot of blow yet he thinks other folks should rot in jail for it, corruption of his buddy Rezko who gifted him $300,000, the nuclear industry donations in eschange for legislative favors, his lack of experience, which is a multifaceted issue relating to terrorism, forieng opliciy and the economy, his inability to handle a tough press conference, and so on) I remain of the opinion that Clinton is more electable and, at a minimum, we have not really considered Obama's electability fairly and thoroughly. That is a dominant factor for me.

"unPC, are you saying that ... the way that superdelegates vote is based solely on their political insight? are you really this naive?"

If you are suggesting that the way they vote is based on their dirty self interest, let's assume you are right. OK?

I think Norm Dicks is supremely able to calculate his own political self interest. In this case the equation would include (a) (chances of hillary winning)/(chances of Obama winning) x (what he can gain, exrpessly or implicitly, by endorsing one or the other).

OK? Pure self interest.
In this case he's betting that Clinton will will the nomination and the general election, and he gains the most by putting in with Clinton right now, at the crucial moment for Washington State. And -- he's not likely to suffer under Pres. Obama because there won't be a Pres. Obama.

Another reason I believe he is a supremely able political calculator:
--he was AA to Warren Magnuson the best Senator we have ever had;
--he's been in the Congress for like 30 years.
He's worked his whole life in politics.

I believe that people are motivated by their own yearnings and ideals and self identity with their ideals. Conservatives truly believe they are acting for God ahd what is best for everyone; Liberals truly believe they are acting for the best of the common good. Obama folks truly thin he's more electable and (news flash) Clinton folks think she's more electable.

Norm Dicks truly believes that whatever he does, is for the common good, as this is reasonably attainable within the current system. He sees no distinction between his ideals and his calculating "political" side at all.

The point is this:
even if you're right and he's a dirty old establishment politician, that makes my point only stronger, not weaker, because he ain't gonna give his name and political capital to the candidate he thinks will lose.

None of it matters, because the McCain/Crist Administration takes office Jan 09.

wtf...if wa state goes for obama and these superdelegates go for clinton then i will not support them any more...this system is messed up

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If the Hillamonster does not have enough pledged delegates after she "persuades" the Democratic Party to seat Michigan and Florida, the super delegates will nominate Mrs. Clinton irregardless. Mark my word. Smart money is on Billary. The Clintonian machine never loses...

REMEMBER, fuckwads, not Bush, not McCain

Dems will win, either Clinton or Obama

Get a grip, this choices thing is beginning to sound like a Rove tactic to divide and depress our power

Mc Cain will pick a woman if he is smart, and who will it be ??? Dobson's wife??? Phyliwss Schafley ???

Nancy Reagan ??? Which woman - please help

Superdelegates should be required to wear tights.

Tights and capes.

Fairy Boy is living in a Fairy Tale. McCain/Crist 2008!

If this is decided by the Super Delegate votes, and they don't go with the popular vote, it will be the end of the Democratic Party as you know it. Riots anyone? ...I'm liking this. It's fun.

Clinton or Obama will win in the fall. The sky is not falling. McCain is peaking way too early, and when the economy is in the tank (as it is right now) we always win.

Clinton/Obama 2008.

Why is it every time I hear the term "superdelegate" I am reminded of the ANIMAL FARM motto, "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others"?

If you care about the Iraq War, think before you vote

For 3 years, Sen. Clinton had taken the same position on Iraq as Bush.

She said the same words as Bush:
Sen. Clinton: "Every nation has to be either with us or against us"
Hear her say this on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbYGYiGjpUs

Sen. Clinton did not read the National Intelligence Report (NIE) which raised doubts about WMD in Iraq. Sen. Bob Graham even urged her and other senators to read the NIE before casting their vote on Iraq War but to no avail.

Sen. Clinton said that "intelligence reports clearly showed Iraq had WMD" even though she did not bother to read the NIE. (Senate proceedings Oct 12, 2002)

Sen. Clinton also said "Saddam had links to Al Qaeda" on the senate floor. This was a Bush talking point and no credible intelligence indicated so. Even several senators who voted for Iraq did not believe any such Al Qaeda link existed. (Senate proceedings Oct 12, 2002)

Sen. Clinton has not once admitted that her war vote was a mistake. How can she confront the Republicans saying that war was a mistake?

In Nov 2003, Sen. Clinton called for a ''tough-minded, muscular foreign and defense policy.'' She urged ''patience'' and worried about the political will ''to stay the course.'' She also said her vote for war was the right vote.

In Feb 2005, Sen. Clinton said that much of Iraq was ''functioning quite well" echoing Bush once again.

In 2005, Sen. Clinton appeared on "Meet the Press" saying it ''would be a mistake'' to call for the immediate withdrawal of troops or set a timetable.

Only after the majority of public opinion turned against the war, and she started thinking about her presidential run, Sen. Clinton changed her position.

Are you sure, she would not follow a "tough-minded" foreign policy similar to Bush's once she is elected. She already voted to label Iran's National Guard as terrorists giving Bush yet another pass.

Sen. Obama begins by criticizing Hillary on Iraq. Sen. Obama does not mention that -- with the exception of Hillary's opposition to the promotion of Iraq war architect Gen. George Casey -- Sen. Obama and Hillary have identical voting records on the Iraq war. Read more here.

Sen. Obama then misrepresents Hillary’s position on Iran. In fact, Hillary was one of the earliest and staunchest opponents of Bush’s saber rattling on Iran, and spoke out on the issue back in February:

Hillary made a floor speech declaring that President Bush must get authorization from Congress before taking military action against Iran. [Clinton Release, 2/14/07]
Hillary co-sponsored the Webb bill prohibiting use of funds for military action in Iran without Congressional authorization. [Clinton Release, 10/01/07]
Sen. Obama missed the vote he is now using to attack Hillary. He issued a release 9 hours later and co-sponsored a similar bill in April. The bill was also supported by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), a staunch anti-war Bush critic and prominent Obama supporter. Read more here and here.

Sen. Obama's comments on lobbyists come a week after Public Citizen released a report detailing ten bundlers for Sen. Obama who have registered as federal lobbyists.

Sen. Obama has also taken money from former lobbyists, partners of lobbyists, people who hire lobbyists, lobbyists' spouses, and state lobbyists.

Until he started running for president, Sen. Obama took money from federal lobbyists and, as a state senator, directly from corporations.

So Amy, tell me again how Obama isn't a slimy two-faced liar? You are obviously misinformed.

The superdelegate thing is really bad.

I can understand why they started it, from the party perspective anyway, but that doesn't mean it's good for this situation.

Each of the superdelegates was elected into office by us. Party officials are also elected by us.

Each superdelegate gets to vote their own personal vote AND cast a superdelegate vote.

Divide the number of voters in our state by the number of superdelegates. Each superdelegate vote ends up being worth 10,000 or so regular votes.

In this case we have two wildly popular candidates and so far a very even delegate distribution.

If the superdelegates decide this election, it will rip the heart out of the party, the very thing that created the superdelegates to protect itself.

1/2 of the voters will feel just like they felt when the Court gave the election to Bush over Gore who won the popular vote.

If there is no way to not include the superdelegates, at least have them wait to commit until after their state has held their primary/caucus. Then they can cast their super ballot according to how their district voted which would reinforce the peoples vote.

That would probably benefit the Clintons as they've won bigger states and all, but at least it LOOKS fair.

What a mess.

Oh and Florida and Michigan should hold caucuses that the state party pays for AFTER all the other primary/caucuses are over...6/15ish.

That way the state parties are punished by having to wait to the end, having to pay more but the VOTERS get to participate.

This is a democracy isn't it?

Norm Dicks is all about war industry profits.

Obama threatens that.

Clinton doesn't.

Not that surprising if you know him.

If the superdelegates ignore the popular vote, then the Democrats will have fucked themselves for the third time in a row. If you support Clinton, then you support the war. Case fucking closed.

I believe Will is right. It is about the military-industrial connection. Dicks enjoys strong support from the workers at Boeing, local shipyards, and military bases (he has a reputation of defending union rights.) This blue collar base tends to be a little more "boot up your ass" than the democratic caucus at large, even if they see the folly of Iraq at this point.

----------------------

I just contacted all the super delegates that represent me from the list below (taken from earlier slog post and updated) and thanked them for supporting Obama, or asked them to promptly change their support to him.

I think he really needs the momentum now, and don't want these superdelegates to be able to wait until our primary results. It may turn out much closer due to the peculiarities of the process and the fact that many people will not vote because it "does not count." It could end up being used to justify a super delegate sticking by Hillary--for that reason i would suggest we all vote in the primary.

Brian Baird: Uncommitted.

Sen. Maria Cantwell: Clinton.

Democratic National Committee member Ed Cote: Uncommitted.

Rep. Norm Dicks: Clinton.

Former House Speaker Tom Foley: Clinton.

Gov. Christine Gregoire: Obama.

Rep. Jay Inslee: Clinton.

Rep. Rick Larsen: Uncommitted.

State party Vice Chairwoman Eileen Macoll: Uncommitted.

Democratic National Committee member Sharon Mast: Uncommitted.

Rep. Jim McDermott: Uncommitted.

Democratic National Committee member David McDonald: Uncommitted.

Sen. Patty Murray: Clinton.

Democratic National Committee member Pat Notter: Obama.

State party Chairman Dwight Pelz: Uncommitted.

King County Executive Ron Sims: Clinton.

Rep. Adam Smith: Obama.