Day after Edwards’ endorsement, Obama support surges

May 15, 2008

I get the sense the Obama campaign is having a pretty good day. With Hillary Clinton’s landslide victory in the West Virginia primary in the rear-view mirror, and John Edwards’ high-profile endorsement yesterday, Obama and his team have spent the afternoon fighting with Bush and McCain, which is exactly the dynamic Obama wants more of.

Just as importantly, delegates have been moving to Obama all afternoon.

Barack Obama collected the support of four of John Edwards’ Democratic National Convention delegates on Thursday, then gained the backing of four superdelegates and a large labor union as he marched steadily toward the party’s presidential nomination.

The fresh support brought Obama’s overall delegate total to 1,895, compared to 1,718 for his rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton. It takes 2,026 to clinch the nomination at the party convention in Denver this summer.

Looking over the headlines, this is what we’ve seen over the last few hours:

* Three superdelegates from the House — Reps. James McDermott of Washington, and Henry Waxman and Howard Berman of California — all endorsed Obama.

* At least six of Edwards’ eight South Carolina delegates endorsed Obama.

* Larry Cohen, the president of the Communication Workers of America union and a superdelegate, endorsed Obama.

* The United Steelworkers Union, which had backed Edwards, endorsed Obama.

* The entire party establishment has spent the day pushing back against Bush/McCain, at least indirectly on Obama’s behalf.

From Obama’s perspective, this has to be considered a pretty good day.

It’s worth noting that the Clinton campaign got at least some good news today, when the American Leadership Project, a pro-Clinton 527 group, launched a new half-million dollar ad buy on Clinton’s behalf in Oregon.

As Greg Sargent noted, “The spot is an all-positive one touting her strength on the economy, a major departure for the group, which had aired a string of ads attacking Obama in other states. The shift to a positive spot suggests that ALP’s major backers — unions and big Hillary donors — may recognize that the contest is all but over, don’t want to damage Obama in advance of his inevitable general election candidacy, and don’t want to further alienate the party’s all but certain nominee.”

Also, in case you’re curious (I was) the number of uncommitted superdelegates is down to about 230, which is close to Obama’s overall delegate lead.

Its great, great news that George Bush has placed himself in the mix in such an inappropriate fashion. It ties him more closely with John McCain. To use Bush’s own words, “Bring it on.”

…and as for Mr. Straight Talk, his announcement today that he will “win” the war in Iraq by 2013 sounds alot like Nixon’s “secret plan.”

  • Fun with math…If Obama got 57% of the remaining superdelegates – and not one more single regular pledged delegate – he’d have the nomination.

    Meanwhile, for Clinton to get the nomination she’d need EVERY SINGLE ONE of the remaining pledged delegates PLUS 52 percent of the supers.

  • More good news to Obama is that there is additional evidence that Clinton is in the acceptance phase of greiving over her candidacy (from NBC First Read via Political Wire):

    Is Clinton Backing Off?
    NBC News notes Sen. Hillary Clinton didn’t sound much like a candidate at a South Dakota campaign staff earlier today.

    “Maybe we’re getting a bit ahead of things, maybe its just the place and time, maybe its that we’re all looking for clues about her intentions, but the vibe feels different.”

    “Clinton began her remarks talking about how great it is that South Dakota is going to vote, and how important those votes will be. But what followed was a detailed talk about farming and rural issues, not why she’s still in the race, nor much of her usual stump speech.”

  • McCain saying that the war will end in about 2013 sounds very similar to Bush saying 2009 about 4 years ago.

    I loved the way the leaders of our party went after Bush/McSame today. Listening to Biden, Obama and Hillary all singing the same song and going after that piece of trash was exhillarating. It is going to be a very good year.

  • Mark, I’d be more worried that straying from her stump speech is just a defense mechanism. The fact that people are responding favorably to the American leadership Project ad is a sign that going negative doesn’t work for HRC, but now she pretty much goes there by reflex. She has to make a deliberate effort NOT to go negative, which results in not knowing what, exactly, to say.

  • “…the Clinton campaign got at least some good news today, when the American Leadership Project, a pro-Clinton 527 group, launched a new half-million dollar ad buy on Clinton’s behalf in Oregon.”

    Isn’t it illegal for 527’s to promote one candidate or dis another? Whether it’s a pro-Hillary ad, pro-Obama ad or pro-McCain ad—why isn’t the law being enforced?

    And why aren’t these candidates publicly and forcefully slapping these people down (MoveOn.org included)?

  • …as for Mr. Straight Talk, his announcement today that he will “win” the war in Iraq by 2013 sounds alot like Nixon’s “secret plan.”

    A secret plan to end the war in six years? Persuasive.

  • In retrospect, did Edwards misread the Democrat primary process even worse than Hillary’s people did? When it is winner-take-all, if you aren’t #1 or #1, there is little point in continuing. However, in a proportional system, where is the downside in staying in as a poorly uncompetitive, underfunded, barely competing alternative? That way you remain a possibility if fatigue sets in with the major candidates or if they beat themselves to a bloody stalemate. If nothing else, if you can stay in long enough to collect 100-200 delegates, you might get to be kingmaker.

  • Great news – when this get wrapped up, we can focus on a real creep, habitual liar, and the man that wants to carry on dur chimpfurher’s agenda john mclame.

    It will be wonderful to no longer see any concern trolls here misrepresenting Obama’s candidacy and making racist statements that somehow its the uneducated white vote that is more important than real progressives, liberals, and people of color?

    And really – even is shillary had that crowd all locked up, which she didn’t, why would anyone in their right mind claim that this was an advantage.

  • I look forward to the day when the only concern trolls we see are lying about john mclame.

    Does anyone even think they will come here and post crap anyhow? I doubt it, but I know that EVERYONE ELSE is ready for them.

  • little bear said: . . . concern trolls. . .

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  • Has Obama gained more delegates this week than Clinton, despite her win in West Virginia?

    Indeed he has. Since the WV primary, it’s Obama 7.5, Clinton 1. Obama also has a new Michigan super (who can’t be counted, at least not now) and at least one former Edwards pledged delegate, supposedly to be followed by six more from SC. Those six haven’t been confirmed yet, though.

  • From URBAN DICTIONARY

    1. concern troll (27 thumbs up)
    A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of “concern,” to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don’t really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending.

    A concern troll on a progressive blog might write, “I don’t think it’s wise to say things like that because you might get in trouble with the government.” Or, “This controversy is making your side look disorganized.”

    2. concern troll (18 up, 1 down)
    A person who lurks, then posts, on a site or blog, expressing concern for policies, comments, attitudes of others on the site. It is viewed as insincere, manipulative, condescending.

    A concern troll commented, “You should be careful about what you write because you might get in trouble with the government.” Another concern troll wrote, “This debate makes our side look disorganized.”

    ===============================================

    Those that post lies and distortions, claiming to “prove” Obama can’t win and the we need shillary are, by the top 2 definitions, are “concern trolls.”

  • 3. concern troll (9 thumbs up)
    In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with “concerns”. The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you’re an ally. Concern trolls who use fake identities are sometimes known as sockpuppets.

    In the 2006 election, an aide to Congressman Charlie Bass (R-NH) was caught concern trolling the opposition on local blogs. While pretending to support Bass’s opponent, Paul Hodes, the aide argued that Hodes couldn’t win because Bass was an unbeatable candidate. Hodes won the election.

  • I pretty much expected that Edwards’ endorsement would mean that Obama would get his delegates. So it is surprising to me that they are not all going over to Obama — that he is getting 6 of 8, not 8 of 8 in SC for example. If you are going to gloat over every single announcement that a previous Edwards superdelegate has gone over to Obama, that isn’t an increasing avanlanche of support — it is the same support as was implied by yesterday’s announcement. From your headline, it sounded like someone was joining Edwards, not that his superdelegates were following his lead (otherwise who cares who he endorses)?

    I get so tired of these inflated and superheated enthusiastic posts about Obama’s momentum that turn out to be nothing but hype.

    Did you explain why Edwards gets to call the election over? Who appointed him referee of the process? No one.

    Slappy Magoo — this isn’t about who has the most delegates at any time before the convention. It is about how those delegates vote at the convention. Pledged delegates are not necessarily required to vote as pledged, and have gone against their pledges in past elections. JFK poached Adlai Stevenson’s pledged delegates, for example. Obama may be presumptive nominee, but he is not the actual nominee until the convention. Until then, this is not a done deal no matter what the tallies. Edwards can say what he likes — he apparently has to say something to fulfill his part of whatever bargain he struck with Obama. If he is auditioning for VP, he’ll want to show his effectiveness at campaigning in that slot. That doesn’t mean anyone has to take what he says seriously.

  • Hillary supporters are not concern trolls unless they pretend to support Obama, which would be a contradiction in terms. Since the Democratic party does not belong exclusively to Obama or Hillary, someone claiming to be concerned about the impact of the primaries on the party, or the long-term success in the general election cannot be a concern troll because they are not crossing sides to make that argument. A Republican concerned about Democratic prospects would be a concern troll. Those of you who claim that anyone who doesn’t support Obama is a Republican, don’t get to go on and call their opponents concern trolls on that basis. That would be an Orwellian rewriting of the definition of Republican.

  • Now that the nomination is settled, who’ll be the VP?

    I want John Edwards. He could be the AG, of course, but I believe the AG’s office should be restored to its dignity after being trashed by the Bush Crime Family.. Edwards could do that, of course, but he’d be far more effective in a political office like the Vice Presidency.

    If I were Obama I’d have Edward head a Vice-Presidential Commission on War Profiteering (a la the Truman Commission of WWII). Perhaps an even broader mission, to undo all the harm the Bush Crime Family has done and to see everyone responsible headed for hearings or jail.

  • “In retrospect, did Edwards misread the Democrat primary process even worse than Hillary’s people did? When it is winner-take-all, if you aren’t #1 or #1, there is little point in continuing. However, in a proportional system, where is the downside in staying in as a poorly uncompetitive, underfunded, barely competing alternative? That way you remain a possibility if fatigue sets in with the major candidates or if they beat themselves to a bloody stalemate. If nothing else, if you can stay in long enough to collect 100-200 delegates, you might get to be kingmaker.”

    I think that Edwards’ original plan was probably to do that, but he may have backed off when he realized that being “kingmaker” could be a really bad thing.

    Look at how the superdelegates behaved. Once it became clear that two candidates were going to slog it out until the end, most of the supers became reluctant to endorse anyone at all, partly for fear of backing the wrong horse, but mostly because if they will be blamed for it if the person they backed loses in November. Most of them have been endorsing the winner of their state primary, but only after the voters in that state had their say.

    Edwards may have decided that the cons outweighed the pros and decided discretion was the better part of valour.

  • mary – if they pretend to be dems/liberals/progressives and they lie about things that are entirely against what dems/liberals/progressives…

    concern trolls

    Like when they argue that somehow only the uneducated white vote should count, cuz becoming racists is the only thing that can save dems/liberals/progresives…

  • Ed, with all due respect, I think Edwards would make a terrible VP. He doesn’t put any new states/regions in play, he didn’t add much to Kerry’s ticket in ’04, and he would look like a re-tread. Furthermore, the GOP would be able to score big points on the “inexperienced” meme. And don’t get me started on the GOP’s feminization of Edwards. We’d never hear the end of the $400 haircut story. Obama needs a VP who absolutely cannot be feminized (or masculinized, if the VP pick is female,) since we know that’s one of the GOP’s old standbys.

  • Ed… Edwards would be best as AG, that way he can prove his acumen in the trenches by going after the war profiteers, as you suggested. As soon as an opening at the Supreme Court happens, voila…. ready candidate.

  • The Caped Composer – I am not directly disagreeing with your opinion about Edwards as a VP, but you don’t recognize that THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN and that KERRY/EDWARDS was able to WIN the POTUS – at least if we have free, fair, open, and verifiable elections.

    How you can complain about his role as VP when the ticket SHOULD have won is beyond me.

    • Comments are closed.