From Boston.com:
Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota is announcing her support this morning. The Wall Street Journal reported today that all seven Democratic US House members from North Carolina plan to come out for Obama in one fell swoop before that state's May 6 primary.[snip]
She is the 64th superdelegate to endorse Obama since Super Tuesday on Feb. 5.
Obama, boasting a more than 6-1 edge in superdelegate endorsements since Super Tuesday, is quickly catching up to Clinton in that count. He already leads in overall delegates and popular vote heading into the next contest, the April 22 primary in Pennsylvania. The 795 superdelegates -- elected officials, party leaders, and others -- are likely to decide the nominee because neither Clinton nor Obama appear likely to reach the clinching number just from those delegates awarded by primaries and caucuses.
Cool, he's getting endorsments!!!
Clinton, who along with Obama is campaigning today in Pennsylvania, stressed several times over the weekend that she has no plans to drop out and may indeed take the fight all the way to the national convention in late August.
Crap, they don't mean much.
Until/unless the superdelegates do more than endorse Obama (if indeed they can do more) it don't mean a thing. Hillary just ain't gettin' it.
Comments (5)
I disagree. An endorsement for Obama means a vote for him, and since the superdelegates ARE going to decide this contest (there's really no question about that anymore), every endorsement is huge, even if it doesn't translate into votes on the ground. If Obama gets enough support from the superdelegates, he could make it to the required amount before the convention and Hillary would have no choice but to drop out.
Posted by Toby![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.spitballpolitics.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 31, 2008 1:46 PM
Posted on March 31, 2008 13:46
Couple things.
Does an endorsement = a vote? Here's where I confess (profess? and if one is the opposite of the other as pro is to con is the oppsite of a profession a confession? and is the opposite of progress congress? but I digress) my ignorance. If so great, though even if you're right and Hillary is forced to give up how much damage will be done in the meantime?
Also while the endorsement is good, if it si not = a vote then are the endorsers simply sandbagging?
Posted by Scott![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.spitballpolitics.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 31, 2008 2:02 PM
Posted on March 31, 2008 14:02
Not necessarily. A superdelegate who endorses Obama doesn't have to vote for him, but it would really be silly to do endorse Obama and vote for Clinton. They COULD do it, but I can't fathom that ever happening.
Also, one has to consider why people endorse in the first place. Usually, it's so that their supporters will also support the candidate they're endorsing. It would be counteractive to endorse Obama, then vote for Clinton, or vice versa.
Posted by Toby![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.spitballpolitics.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 31, 2008 2:10 PM
Posted on March 31, 2008 14:10
You can't fathom a politician twisting with the wind? Come on Toby. ;-)
Posted by Scott![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.spitballpolitics.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 31, 2008 3:27 PM
Posted on March 31, 2008 15:27
Actually, since the Feb 5th Super TUESDAY! TUESDAY! TUESDAY! primaries, there have been a substantial number of superdelegates switch camps from Clinton to Obama. The fact that it happens is not in dispute, but going to the DNCC and changing your vote there is reprehensible, and would disenfranchise their own constituency. As you said, these are politicians after all.
The problem I see right now, is that the Clinton campaign is pursuing a line of reasoning that even the PLEDGED delegates are able to change their vote on a whim, which is patently false and dangerous from a representative perspective.
Posted by Patrick![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.spitballpolitics.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 1, 2008 1:42 AM
Posted on April 1, 2008 01:42