Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Ribbed for Her Plea… Oh, No. O... | Secret Superdelegates »

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Outing Superdelegates

posted by on April 30 at 9:12 AM

We’re all used to thinking about undeclared superdelegates as though they’re really, truly unsure which candidate would be the best standardbearer for the party and candidate in the general election. But there are clearly some superdelegates who have their minds made up—and are just retaining their undeclared status so they can make partisan arguments to the media.

As I wrote way back on March 17, it’s pretty clear that Washington State undeclared superdelegate Eileen Macoll is for Clinton. First she issued this bubbly statement to the New York Times: “They have so much to offer. It’s an amazing experience to be a superdelegate and in this position. I truly am undecided.” Then, all sneaky style, she offered the classic Clinton formulation on big states: “I’m going to watch the traffic and watch the flow and see which way it’s going. I’ll especially be watching how the vote goes in the large states that remain, like Pennsylvania, Texas and Ohio. That will perhaps lead me to a decision.”

But now that Clinton has won Pennsylvania and Ohio and has half-won, half-lost Texas, what does Eileen Macoll do? She stays undeclared so she can make it seem like the superdelegates are totally torn up about this Jeremiah Wright business. From today’s New York Times:

Eileen Macoll, a Democratic county chairman from Washington State who has not chosen a candidate, said she was stunned at the extent of national attention the episode has drawn, and she said she believed it would give superdelegates pause.

“I’m a little surprised at how much traction it is getting, and I do believe it is beginning to reflect negatively on Senator Obama’s campaign,” Ms. Macoll said. “I think he’s handling it very well, but I think it’s almost impossible to make people feel comfortable about this.”

Come on, Eileen.

Obama has a few underhanded undeclared supers of his own, most notably South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, a stately voice of outrage on behalf of the African-American community. First, Clyburn started slagging Bill Clinton for his Jesse Jackson analogy, now he issues such blatantly partisan cris de coeur as this:

“I think a lot of Clinton surrogates have been marginalizing, demonizing and trivializing Obama,” said the undeclared superdelegate, who worried the Democrats will lose in the fall if Americans lose faith in the election process.

Eileen Macoll and James Clyburn, I know what you’re up to. Declare already and stop this silly posturing.

RSS icon Comments

1

My thoughts verge on dirty.

Posted by elenchos | April 30, 2008 9:21 AM
2

This post wins because of the "Come on, Eileen." line. That was great.

Posted by NaFun | April 30, 2008 9:28 AM
3
Come on, Eileen.
Oh, I can just see the smirk on your face while you wrote that.
Posted by JC | April 30, 2008 9:30 AM
4

Barack netted more delegates from his victory in Washington state than Hillary netted in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and the Texas Primary COMBINED.

Posted by ru shur | April 30, 2008 9:30 AM
5

Of course a lot of them are going to wait until the last minute to announce, because (1) they can try to bargain with the Clinton folks in the meanwhile, and (2) on the off chance that Obama is caught on videotape drowning a kitten, they're still safe.

Posted by tsm | April 30, 2008 9:35 AM
6

tsm, it was his pastor that drowned the kitty, how many times do we have to correct this?

Posted by infrequent | April 30, 2008 10:00 AM
7

Meanwhile, the dirty little secret is that Obama brings in more campaign cash in a DAY than Clinton brings in for a WEEK. And all she's doing is airing attack videos that orginated - according to IP traces - in the McCain campaign ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | April 30, 2008 10:00 AM
8

@7, Will post a link to the accusation on the IP address! Would love to read about that!

Posted by Andrew | April 30, 2008 10:09 AM
9

Has anyone put together a list of Super D's and the candidate they are "likely" to vote for? It would be a start at least and could help us get a glimpse of what we have in store for us.

Posted by Suz | April 30, 2008 10:35 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).