Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Lost Glasses | How Low Can Hiphop Go? »

Friday, April 25, 2008

Good Question

posted by on April 25 at 14:30 PM

Postman wants to know: What did Dwight Pelz, chair of the Washington State Democrats, mean by this quote in the New York Daily News?

“It’s time for us to end this,” added Dwight Pelz, Washington State party chairman and undecided superdelegate. “The candidates are tearing each other apart, and it’s not good for the party. I think we need to have a candidate.”

Is Pelz about to doff his neutrality and endorse? People, including me, want to know.

RSS icon Comments


DUH!!! Pelz is going to announce that he is going to run for the White House

Posted by Andrew | April 25, 2008 2:34 PM

Pelz leads a state party whose members have caucused overwhelmingly in support of Obama; for him to do anything other than endorse Obama would certainly require a great deal of, uh, explanation.

Posted by Trey | April 25, 2008 2:38 PM

^Not so, according to Erica's well-thought and reasoned argument.

oh, I just spit milk out of my nose. That hurt.

Posted by Michelle Malkin | April 25, 2008 2:40 PM

When you consider the fact that Hillary is pretty much doomed (barring massive intervention by the superdelegates, which would definitely fracture the party), this statement reads like a tacit endorsement of Obama.

Posted by Hernandez | April 25, 2008 2:53 PM

Does the Democratic Party have the power to purge a candidate in mid-run? I kind of hope not. I more than kind of hope not.

Posted by tomasyalba | April 25, 2008 3:17 PM

So when will Jim McD endorse?

Posted by Will in Seattle | April 25, 2008 3:24 PM

Pelz's quote in email to WA democrats last Tuesday.

"We have two wonderful candidates- Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama - but no nominee. They are essentially tied in the delegate count. Pennsylvania is looking close and may not decide the contest."

Posted by Gabe Global | April 25, 2008 4:47 PM

At this point, I'm almost hoping for a complete impasse at the Convention which causes the party to draft Gore.

Posted by Geni | April 25, 2008 5:00 PM

@8 - from your fingers to the Flying Spaghetti Monster's all seeing invisible eyes, Geni.

Posted by Will in Seattle | April 25, 2008 5:53 PM

Why Hillary does NOT make a good candidate
1. actually looked over there congressional records and all of her bills are about naming post offices and no brainer 911 bills. Obamas are more nuanced and meaningful. ie a national registry so that victims of natural disaster can find their loved ones.
2. She has the largest amount of earmarks and all of them and they are for direct compaign contributors.
3. Experience??? After the health care debacle of 92, she didn't do anything in the White House that any other first lady has done. Except take photo ops with Wo and other large corrupt contributors (which was redacted in the release of her schedule). If being the first lady counts as experience than why isn't Laura Bush running.
4. She is ruining the party, the electorate, and apparently is willing to slice America up into 3rds just for the chance to lose the Presidency.

Posted by T | April 26, 2008 2:06 PM

Oh and she is unable to win at this point so I guess that she has already lost....

Posted by T | April 26, 2008 2:07 PM

I think it means it is hard to raise volunteers and money for the party when you don't have a clear story to tell yet. Is that really that hard to figure out. Dwight is the party chair. He wants to kick ass in November.

Posted by duh | April 26, 2008 11:00 PM

Comments Closed

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