The clock is ticking…

Following Sen. Barack Obama's ascension to the needed number of delegates to ensure the Democratic nomination, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA), Democratic Governors Association Chairman Joe Manchin and DNC Chairman Howard Dean have issued a statement;

"We have come to the end of an exciting primary and caucus process - the voters have spoken. As the Democratic leaders of the Senate, House of Representatives, the Governors and the Democratic National Committee we commend all of the participants of the 2008 primary process, especially Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, for making this such a transformational election.

Because of the enthusiasm our candidates have inspired, our party has brought record numbers of voters to the polls, gained millions of newly registered Democrats and now has advantages in states many thought were difficult to win. We are grateful to the millions of Independents and Republicans who have crossed over to vote for a Democratic candidate for president.

Democrats must now turn our full attention to the general election. To that end, we are urging all remaining uncommitted super delegates to make their decisions known by Friday of this week so that our party can stand united and begin our march toward reversing the eight years of failed Bush/McCain policies that have weakened our country.

We once again congratulate all of the candidates for their leadership and dedication to providing this country with a new direction. We look forward to working with them and with all Democrats to win the White House, congressional seats and state capitals so we can deliver the change the American people deserve and demand.”

There you have it… if you’re a super-delegate, you have until Friday.

Otherwise the DNC will be sending Vito and Bruno over to ‘help’ you make your decision…

Please God, make it stop

The Associated Press is reporting that, according to their own tally of convention delegates, Sen. Obama has effectively clinched the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

It’s AP, so take it with a grain of salt and stay tuned…

A Change is needed

Two more primaries are occurring right now in Indiana and North Carolina, and while the focus is clearly on who will end up with what percentage in these contests, the bottom line still comes down to this:

Super-delegates.

Sen. Clinton has to perform well in order to continue pushing the message that she is the one who is in a better position to beat Sen. McCain in November, but with the way the Democratic Party assigns delegates, odds are neither one is going to end up with a huge boost in numbers after today’s votes are cast.

The Democratic party needs to make some changes in the way the primaries/caucuses/etc are handled.

My preference; get rid of the caucuses, throw the concept of super-delegates out the door and base the nomination on a truly democratic process… vote in the primary, winner of the states wins the delegates.

Pretty damn straightforward if you ask me… and then, and only then, would we truly have a system where everyone who was eligible to vote had the ability to do so, and the decision of who gets the nomination would be made by the voters themselves…

What a concept… a concept that should seem more vital now that Sen. Clinton’s campaign has openly stated that the campaign will attempt to get their allies on the Democratic Convention’s rules committee to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations… something that would not only give approval to breaking the rules, but would also showcase how dysfunctional the Democratic party can be at times… which is something we do NOT need right now.

(I am going to assume everyone reading this knows about MI and FL and how the legislatures in Michigan and Florida decided to hold early primaries despite the DNC telling them they would be held accountable and that their votes wouldn’t count… and how all the major candidates agreed not to campaign in those states… and that most voters stayed away from the polls in those states because they knew that the results would be insignificant) [Co-editors note: And don't forget that Sen. Obama's name did not even appear on the ballot in Michigan as he knew that the votes would not be counted due to violating the parties previously established and agreed upon rules - sorry for interrupting, Scott]

Ms. Clinton has wanted to seat those delegated for some time (electoral math shows she has no chance in hell to win without those states), and she now plans to use the rules committee that she stocked with her own allies to swing a backroom deal that would, essentially, thwart the will of the majority of Democratic voters.

Big, big mistake.

I personally will vote for whomever gets the Democratic nomination, but I know for certain that others won’t.

If Clinton wins in that manner, not only will a plethora of voters stay home in droves on Election Day, but it would be easy for Sen. McCain to paint her as the candidate who’s willing to do anything to satisfy her (blind?) ambition.

In other words, it’s one thing that might throw the election to the republicans and give us four more years of Bush 2: Electric Bugaboo.

And we can’t have that, can we?

Let's get it done... sooner, not later

With another primary a week away, DNC chairman Howard Dean is once again trying to nudge the as-of-now-un-pledged super-delegates (could I have more hypens?) into making their choice known by June 4th, the day after the final Democratic primary.

Said Dean; "We want the voters to have their say. That's over on June 3. […] We really can't have a divided convention. If we do it's going to be very hard to heal the party afterwards. So we'll know who the nominee is, and that'll give us an extra 2 1/2 months to get our party together, heal the wounds of having a very closely divided race and take on Sen. McCain.”

Granted, Democratic Party rules enable the super-delegates to wait until the presidential nominating convention in Denver on Aug. 25 to make a choice, but Dean says, correctly I might add, that the party cannot wait that long if it hopes to beat Republican John McCain in November.

If we do, it will be that many additional months for McBush to trot out the same old, same old that we’ve come to know and abhor with George Bush in office for eight years.

The Democrats still have a better than average shot at getting back into the White House, but we need to make a move sooner rather than later, and having the nominating process drag out that long would be detrimental to the party…

Regardless of his ‘presumptive nominee’ status, there are still quite a few republicans out there that aren’t sold on Sen. McCain, witness 25% of republican Pennsylvanians voting for Huckabee and Paul last week… and with a weak candidate on that side, we have an opportunity to get a Liberal back in the White House and attempt to clean up the mess that 8 truly horrifying years of George Bush has done.

Stay tuned…

Isn't ignoring the public a republican trait?

Steve Grossman, a former DNC Chairman and Clinton supporter, as well as a super-delegate, sent out an open letter to Democratic Party Super Delegates this past weekend, and in it he urges these other super delegates to refuse “to be mindless tabulators of primaries and caucuses won, or popular votes amassed” because “our party concluded that we had demonstrated the ability to act as stewards of the national party--and of the national interest. By dint of our experience in the community and our public service, we were adjudged fit to fulfill a moral responsibility to act in the best interest of the country as we saw it…”

So let me understand this… he wants the super-delegates to IGNORE the will of the people and to IGNORE the primary results…

I wonder if he would think along these lines if his candidate was leading the delegate count?

I would vote no, but he would overrule it…

When all else fails, UNITE!

After victories in 3 primaries last Tuesday, Sen. Clinton was ready to call the contest for herself.

Not so fast Hillary.

According to a new Gallup poll, her wins in the Texas and Ohio primaries have not transcended themselves towards any noticeable momentum shift.

According to a just-recently completed Gallup poll, Sen. Obama holds what could best be described as a statistical dead-heat 2-point lead over Sen. Clinton – 47% - 45% respectively.

But that’s not the big news, the bigger news is, as Gallup implies, Clinton gained on Obama in the days leading up to the March 4 primaries/caucus, but her successful showing -- winning three of the four elections held that day -- failed to boost her candidacy nationally. So in other words, Ms. Clinton won… but her victories did not have the huge swell of support that her campaign had been expecting, nay needing.

Despite Obama’s victory in Saturday's Wyoming caucus (he won 61% of the vote and more than half of the delegates) neither of the two candidates has broken through the 50% plus range since mid-February, which is a pretty fair indication that the race is likely to remain deadlocked for a relatively long time, at least until an agreement is reached on what to do about the whiney states of Florida and Michigan. Even that would not guarantee that the race would break decisively one way or another in terms of pledged delegates for either Clinton or Obama.

All of which takes us back to the super-delegates and the possibility of a fight at the Denver convention in late August should the campaigns and the DNC be unable to reach a resolution by then.

It’s promising to be a long, hot summer.

The American people need and deserve a functioning government to deal with pressing domestic issues, and Obama has proven ability to bring in not only Independent voters, but quite a few republicans and millions of Democrats.

Sen. Clinton represents the confrontation domestically and in foreign policy that has brought us to the sorry mess we're in now; a federal government paralyzed by bitter partisanship.

I think Ms. Clinton represents more of the same (as does Sen. McCain, but that's a whole other post)

Having said that… whether the nominee is Clinton or Obama, the most important thing is for the Democratic Party to lead a long-term agenda for building a stronger America and a stronger global community.

Support whichever candidate gets the nomination. Our country and our world could be at stake.

One last thought about last night's primaries/caucus

How about a quick delegate rundown for last night… keep in mind that all these numbers are tentative, as final vote tallies continue to creep in from the post-Texas primary Texas caucus (yes, it is as ridiculous as it sounds…)

Vermont, which Sen. Obama won, and its 15 delegates: Obama grabs 9 and Clinton 6.

Rhode Island, which Sen. Clinton won, and its 21 delegate: Clinton gets 12 while Obama still gathers 8.

Texas PRIMARY, which Clinton won, and its 126 delegates: Clinton takes 65 but Obama still grabs 61, only four less than what Clinton, the winner, got.



Ohio, which Clinton won, and its 141 delegates: Clinton took 76 while Obama grabbed 65.

So for the night, Clinton grabbed 191 delegates while Obama scooped-up a still-respectable 178.

The overall lead in pledged delegates, as of now, per CNN;

Obama: 1,257

Clinton: 1,127

If you add super-delegates, Obama has 1,451 and Clinton 1,365 with 2,025 needed to officially secure the nomination.

What does all of this mean?

Well, the stark reality of it is that, despite her three state victories last night, Clinton only chipped away at Obama's pledged delegate lead, and if Obama can show he's not going to collapse under the weight of Clinton's assault, there will be no reason for the super delegates to overturn the will of the voters in either pledged delegates or the popular vote)… and, as my esteemed colleague Scott says, with the way the delegates are divided, in order for Sen. Clinton to pull ahead in the pledged delegate count she would have to win the rest of the primaries and/or caucuses by 65% in each state… which, barring Sen. Obama having a secret love-child with Brittany Spears, will NOT happen.

As always; stay tuned…

Things to consider after 'Mini' Super-Tuesday

Unless you have been in a cave since last night you know that Hillary won Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island in yesterday’s primary contests.

A couple of observations:

• Total vote counts in each state were roughly 2-1 in favor of Democrats over republicans (Kemp’s Note: Which gives me hope for November, regardless of our nominee…)
• Texas was essentially a tie (In the primary voting, the caucuses have yet to be determined)
• Barack Obama leads in pledged delegates by approximately 150

Now these observations raise questions:

• What does the difference in the number of total votes for each party mean for the General Election
• Are there really that many more Democrats in each of these states compared to Republicans? Or was the Republican turnout artificially low because McCain essentially had it locked up? (Which means they will come out in force in November...)
• What was the factor, specifically in Texas and Ohio that caused the dynamic to switch from Obama to Clinton? And can this factor be repeated by one or defeated by the other?
• If Obama maintains his pledged delegate lead, what does that mean for the convention.

Ok, now the last observation and question raise an interesting question. Which was touched on by most news organizations, and that is the issue of the Super-Delegates.

The Obama camp (and the average person) are stating that the Super-Delegates (let’s call them ‘SD’s) should cast their votes in support of the candidate who comes into the convention with the majority of pledged delegates.

The Clinton camp is stating that the SD’s should vote independently of the pledged delegate counts in favor of whom they feel is most qualified.

Of course each candidate is going to favor the position most beneficial to them personally. However let’s think back to another situation where a select group of people decided an election independent of the popular vote: the 2000 Presidential Election.

Should the SD’s at the convention decide to vote for the candidate who has the least number of pledged delegates they will be no different than when the Supreme Court handed the election to George Bush. And we all know how well that has worked out!

Also, what of the electorate? The people, whose votes were recorded, counted and reflected in the pledged delegate count. Think of the outrage, the effect that disenfranchising their vote will have come November. They voted for a candidate and they all expect that a majority rule should apply. Should this majority be ‘slapped’ in the face by the SD’s at the convention I shudder to think of the repercussions?

Personally, I believe that the SD’s should line up and support the pledged delegate majority candidate. However, should the SD’s vote alter the popular vote and elect the lesser candidate then the party needs to put the control back in the hands of the voters and get rid of the SD’s.

We have worked long and hard to get to this point and to have this screwed up by ‘patronage’ delegates will set the party and the country back by decades.

But hey, this is just my opinion…

The Weekly Rewind

After setting up a new home network at my finacee's house I am able to access the world wide web and sum up some of the things that are going on in this country and maybe one or two things that affect the world.



Applaud: to keeping things clean on our side of the fence. In response to a campaign mailer from the Clinton camp, Senator and Obama backer Ted Kennedy spoke out against the ad saying that the tactics are ones of "distortion, misrepresentation," and "fear-mongering." The Senator further stated that this type of ad is divisive and "I think it does a great disservice to all of us who are interested in universal comprehensive healthcare." Thank you Senator! The Democrats can and should point out differences in the others platforms, however those differences nust not be used as openings for the right side of the aisle to distort for political advantage come November.



Heckle: to changing the rules mid stream. As everyone knows the DNC stripped Florida and Michigan of their delegates as punishment for moving up their primaries. Now, in an act of desperation the Clinton campaign is trying to rally support behind their call to include those states delegates at the nominating convention. Whaaa, Whaaa, whats that sound? Yeah the Clinton staffers crying like babies.

Heckle: to speaking out of both sides of your mouth. For as much as Bill Clinton states that he wants to take a back seat in a Hillary Clinton campaign and administration, he sure keeps popping up and grabbing headlines. As a huge supporter of the former President, it pains me to say this...Mr. President it would be better for everyone if you took one or two steps back from your wifes campaign.

Heckle: to continuing distortion. In resposne to ad's criticizing the Obama camp for not agreeing to a Wisconsin debate, the Obama camp let loose with a new ad critical of Hillary Clinton for essentially being part of the machine politics that the Senator Obama is trying to change. After 18 debates, that's right....18 debates do we really need more? What is there left to say? Senator Clinton you need to focus on some real issues......

Heckle: to the Big Easy still being big time messed up. It's been roughly 2 1/2 years since Katrina ripped through New Orleans and the surrounding areas. So why is the lower ninth ward still one of the most depressing areas we can think of?? Because the Bush administration cannot follow through on promises. Once again, January 20, 2009 cannot come soon enough.

Heckle: to 100 years. In defending his statement on having a 100 year troop presence in Iraq, Senator John McCain clarified by stating that it would be no different than our bases in Japan, Germany and South Korea. I'm sorry the big difference is that we had real reasons for being in those countries in the first place.

Heckle: to yet more trouble for Hillary. In a sign of the closeness and varied feelings of this primary race, some super-delegates that were previously committed to Senator Clinton are reevaluating their support. Rep. Davis Scott has already switched his support to Senator Obama and Rep. John Lewis is considering switching. as are others. As we have said before, this is far from over and will continue to be a roller coaster.

Applaud: to winning hearts, minds, and union endorsements. Senator Obama this week picked up the endorsement of the United Food and Commerical Workers Union and the Service Employees InternationalUnion. Two very large and influential unions.

Okay folks that is it for me this week. My esteemed collegue has done an amazing job of gathering and summarizing most issues in his daily posts. I will have to be on my game next time.

Be good, stay informed.....later.

A Delegate Primer

If you are like the plethora of people confused about the delegate process for Democrats, find solace that you are not alone…

So, like I did before Super Fat Tuesday, I thought I would create a Democratic Delegate primer for all of you that are confused and flummoxed by the process.

First, you should understand that there are two kinds of delegates; pledged delegates and the so-called super, or un-pledged, delegates.

Pledged delegates are those who are, oddly enough, pledged to a candidate based on the candidate's performance in a state's nomination contest… have I confused you now? Remember, most states and territories have a primary, but some have caucuses, and even fewer have either a hybrid system or a state convention. Seventy-five percent (75%) of a state's pledged delegates are allocated by Congressional district with the remaining twenty-five percent (25%) allocated in proportion to statewide results… but only if the state has more than one Congressional district…

God, I’m confusing myself now…

Let’s start with the basics… and you can’t get much more basic than republicans… republicans award delegates on a winner-take-all basis, usually by the entire state, although some places award delegates based upon winners of Congressional districts.

Democrats, however, award pledged delegates in proportion to their share of the vote; for example, if a candidate receives at least 15% of the vote in either a congressional district or statewide, he or she will receive at least one delegate from that jurisdiction. Because delegates are parceled out mostly by Congressional district, it is possible, and not rare, for a candidate who finishes second statewide to actually get more delegates than the candidate who won the state, so what matters isn't just the number of votes, but also how they are distributed.

Staying with me so far?

Okay… each state party has a process for determining the actual individuals who will serve as pledged delegates at the Democratic Convention, but individuals can submit their names to the state party and declare which candidate they would like to represent at the convention… these names are then vetted with the campaign so they can determine that these individuals are in fact supporters of their candidate, which is relatively important as there is nothing that binds the individuals to vote for the candidate to whom they originally pledged their support once they’re at the convention.

But that’s why those people are vetted, in an attempt to prevent that from happening. And truth be told, it’s exceptionally rare for someone to not vote for the candidate to whom they originally pledged their support.

Weeks after the state's primary, or caucus, the state party holds a meeting of the leadership and votes on the individual delegates which must have an equal balance of men and women, and must also represent the state's racial make-up.

Now we arrive at the other type of delegates, the un-pledged or “super-delegates” who are not obligated to pledge support for anyone in advance of their arriving at the convention. Furthermore, even if one of these delegated publicly declares their support for one particular candidate nothing officially binds them to stick with that endorsement.

This means that anyone who now declares support for Sen. Hillary Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama could show up at the convention, change their mind, and throw the nominating process into chaos.

It should also me mentioned that most un-pledged delegates are elected officials, in fact, all Democratic members of Congress and the Senate are un-pledged delegates (except Joe Lieberman, whose had his super-delegate status yanked away because someone in the DNC finally realized the putz is a republican in Independent clothing…). Additionally, all Democratic governors are “super-delegates” as are most members of the DNC. Add to that that a small number of “party elders” are also “super-delegates”… and this group can range from former Democratic presidents (Carter & Clinton) to vice-presidents (Gore) to former presidential nominees (Kerry) and former House Speakers to past DNC chairs.

The delegate battle at this summer’s convention will determine our party’s nominee, and the contest is already gotten fierce and will not be decided for quite some time… so, as I like to say, stay tuned.