Superdelegates and an Honest Vote in Denver

the point of the supers (0.00 / 0)

is to vote for the candidate best poised to win and best prepared to take over and reverse the Bush mess, which is a very big job. So far Barack hasn't mentioned that it's a priority for him, and now that his donor list is 'shown' to include pugs who may have wanted him as the candidate so the election would be close and not just a done deal for the Dem's, maybe that should be reason enough to switch back?  Do they get a secret vote?  That's the only way it could be their true feelings and beliefs, there have been too many threats to those who don't jump on the Barack Track.  

Really, going after Dem bundlers who don't think he's a smart investment is hardly the way to win. Giving up public financing and thus rubbing donations from the DNC to make up for that loss isn't the way either.  

This should be a shoo in for us, and it's the supers job to make sure we win the GE, not make sure they don't get punished by the Chicago Smack Down machine.  A little courage is in order?  We have kids dying in Iraq, can't our supers show some courage given the stakes are so very very high?  

Hillary is still ahead in polls and she's suspended her campaign, that should be very useful information to supers who care about the people.  A girl who isn't currently the presumptive nominee ahead in polls against McCain?  How clear can that be, I'd say the 'bottom' has spoken and it's time to  listen up.  

Hillary - alternative energy

---

by: anna shane @ Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:27:00 PM CDT

Glenn Greenwald made a pretty convincing case the other day (0.00 / 0)

for why Obama's FISA vote indicated that Obama is now (and probably has been all along) controlled by Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Kennedy, etc. It's the old story of Faust:  Obama sold his soul in order to become President. Now, his handlers are calling the shots. (Greenwald's premise is that the Dems on the Intelligence committees were in collusion with the Repubs in allowing warrantless wiretapping; therefore, the last thing these collaborators want are Congressional investigations. The "bigshots" agreed to help Obama get the nomination in return for keeping their power bases.)

If Greenwald is correct--and I believe he is correct--then the only way to appeal to the SDs is through down-ticket pressure. IMO, the Dems are prepared to give Obama his chance at the brass ring, knowing full well that there's a good chance he won't win against McCain, but they're willing to take that gamble as long as they gain control of the House and the Senate. Don't forget:  Bill Clinton had a Democratic majority when he first entered office, but they cut him off at the knees when he tried to institute UHC and an open role for gays in the military.

My guess is that the current Dem "leadership" sees in Obama a two-fer:  the token AA candidate who has no experience but will appease the AAs in the Dem base and an opportunity to be the real power behind the throne. They want a strong Congress and a weak President. The only thing that will sway the SDs at this point, IMO, is the fear that Obama will mean the loss of a majority in Congress. That's where the pressure needs to be applied.

---

by: grayslady @ Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 13:33:46 PM CDT

good point about congress... (0.00 / 0)

...and you ought to see the local congresscritters squirm when asked about their support for obama. i did a diary on my allegedly democratic representative, Allen Boyd. i think some reporter cornered him in a stall in the men's room, and got him to admit under torture that he'd actually vote for obama if he were the nominee. that's a pretty underwhelming endorsement.

Barack Obama's election proves that any male can grow up to be president, provided he's willing to use misogyny as a campaign strategy.

---

by: campskunk @ Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 13:57:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

campskunk, that's a great diary, but why the self-flagellation by (0.00 / 0)

posting on MyDD? Glutton for punishment, eh? I wonder if we could target some of those SDs who are clearly reluctant to enthusiastically support Obama? Congress critters are definitely into job security. Especially for the ones who are lower down the totem pole, and won't face the risk of losing committee chairmanships (because they don't have any now anyway), fear of losing their jobs with Obama on the ticket may be our only approach.

---

by: grayslady @ Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 14:26:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There are supers who don't like Obama, (0.00 / 0)

but feel they must support him anyway, in IL and WI, two states he won big (IL being the state he represents).

The problem is, how do we get 'em on our side?  Or is it even possible with two pro-Obama governors in IL and WI putting pressure on everyone to stay with Obama?

There's no excuse for this, DNC.  None.

---

by: LSekhmet @ Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 14:58:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hmmm. Interesting theory. (0.00 / 0)

From 2001 to present, the Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have been the following:

Bob Graham, Florida (no longer in office)
Carl Levin, Michigan * (ex officio)
John D. Rockefeller IV, W. Virginia * (current Chairperson)
Dianne Feinstein, California *
Ron Wyden, Oregon *
Evan Bayh, Indiana *
John Edwards, North Carolina (no longer in office)
Thomas A. Daschle, South Dakota (ex officio) (no longer in office)
Richard Durbin, Illinois
Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland *
Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin *
Jon Corzine, New Jersey (no longer in office)
Harry Reid, Nevada * (ex officio)
Bill Nelson, Florida *
Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island *

* = current committee member

Kerry (voted Nay) and Kennedy (did not vote) have not been on this committee during the last seven years.  FISA bill votes from committee Dems are as follows:

Nays (with Clinton)              Yeas (with Obama)

Durbin                                                     Bayh
Feingold                                                  Feinstein
Levin                                                       Mikulski                                                                        
Reid                                                         Nelson
Wyden                                                     Rockefeller
                                                               Whitehouse

It does not work for me with respect to Intelligence/secret deals.  I do, however, agree that Congress would like to increase its power in the three-way balance.  Unfortunately, they seem to have forgotten that this is done by actually being strong and not lily-livered sell-outs to bad presidents and big money.  Note: vote results source was firedoglake.com  

---

by: ea @ Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 15:28:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're only looking at the Senate (0.00 / 0)

If you look at the House, there's one major name of an individual who was receiving briefings:  Nancy Pelosi. Think she might wield some power these days? Or how about Jane Harman, who did a quick liberal turnabout in 2006 when she was running against a true Democratic contender, but then recently supported telecom immunity in the FISA bill?
My money is on Pelosi, Feinstein and Rockefeller as the heavies in this scenario, with Harman only interested in preserving her job. Durbin, Feingold and Wyden have been consistent Constitution supporters so they have nothing to fear.

BTW, useful list. Thank you.

---

by: grayslady @ Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 15:44:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

House Permanent Select Committe on Intelligence (0.00 / 0)

Silvestre Reyes, Texas
Leonard L. Boswell, Iowa
Robert E. (Bud) Cramer, Jr, Alabama
Anna G. Eshoo, California
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Maryland
John Tierney, Massachusetts
Mike Thompson, California
Jan Schakowsky, Illinois
Jim Langevin, Rhode Island
Patrick Murphy, Pennsylvania
Adam Schiff, California

The web page, which I reviewed before the previous post--did not recognize any Dem, lists the above Dems.  It did not indicate that Pelosi is an ex officio member.  Could there be a different committee that is appropriate?  The related House Bill, H.R. 6404 vote was on June 20, 2008; Harman voted Yea, but she is not on the intel committee.

You are welcome, with respect to the list.  Hit a stopping point at work today, so got into the blogs.

---

by: ea @ Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 16:44:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

error--should be H.R. 6304 (0.00 / 0)

---

by: ea @ Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 16:47:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pelosi is third in line to be President (0.00 / 0)

after Cheney and before Harry Reid. So, she should be receiving intelligience briefings on a regualr basis.  

---

by: DaleA @ Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 23:46:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ea (0.00 / 0)

Good point.  I wonder why the House page doesn't list her as ex officio.  The Senate page lists Reid as such.

---

by: ea @ Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:07:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

make them fold (0.00 / 0)

and if you can't do that, anoint yourself, and then make unveiled threats, plus pay your supporters. Democracy at work.  

Hillary - alternative energy

---

by: anna shane @ Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 18:10:31 PM CDT