Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama Campaign MEMO TO SUPERDELEGATES 5/7/08 (& Clinton Official: "We Lost This Thing In February")

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:11 AM
Original message
Obama Campaign MEMO TO SUPERDELEGATES 5/7/08 (& Clinton Official: "We Lost This Thing In February")
Edited on Wed May-07-08 09:43 AM by kpete
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
"Clinton official" tells Wash. Post: "We lost this thing in February." Okay, then wrap it up.

by Joe Sudbay (DC) · 5/07/2008 09:58:00 AM ET


Today's Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050700065.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008050700287 gets the scoop on what some Clinton insiders are thinking.

First, a top Clinton aide admits now what we've been saying. They lost a long time ago:

"Absent some sort of miracle on May 31st, it's going to be tough for us," said a senior Clinton official who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to be frank. "We lost this thing in February. We're doing everything we can now . . . but it's just an uphill battle."


So, they knew they lost in February, but decided to stay in to destroy Obama? Factor in all the money troubles and you have to ask why the Clinton team kept up its negative assault on Obama.

...........................

more at:
http://www.americablog.com/2008/05/clinton-official-tells-wash-post-we.html

UPDATE

Obama campaign memo to superdelegates
by kos

Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:20:19 AM PDT
TO: Superdelegates
FROM: David Plouffe, Campaign Manager
RE: An Update on the Race for Delegates
DA: May 7, 2008

There are only six contests remaining in the Democratic primary calendar and only 217 pledged delegates left to be awarded. Only 7 percent of the pledged delegates remain on the table. There are 260 remaining undeclared superdelegates, for a total of 477 delegates left to be awarded.

With North Carolina and Indiana complete, Barack Obama only needs 172 total delegates to capture the Democratic nomination. This is only 36% of the total remaining delegates.

Conversely, Senator Clinton needs 326 delegates to reach the Democratic nomination, which represents a startling 68% of the remaining delegates.

With the Clinton path to the nomination getting even narrower, we expect new and wildly creative scenarios to emerge in the coming days. While those scenarios may be entertaining, they are not legitimate and will not be considered legitimate by this campaign or its millions of supporters, volunteers, and donors.

We believe it is exceedingly unlikely Senator Clinton will overtake our lead in the popular vote and in fact lost ground on that measure last night. However, the popular vote is a deeply flawed and illegitimate metric for deciding the nominee – since each campaign based their strategy on the acquisition of delegates. More importantly, the rules of the nomination are predicated on delegates, not popular vote.

Just as the Presidential election in November will be decided by the electoral college, not popular vote, the Democratic nomination is decided by delegates.

If we believed the popular vote was somehow the key measurement, we would have campaigned much more intensively in our home state of Illinois and in all the other populous states, in the pursuit of larger raw vote totals. But it is not the key measurement. We played by the rules, set by you, the DNC members, and campaigned as hard as we could, in as many places as we could, to acquire delegates. Essentially, the popular vote is not much better as a metric than basing the nominee on which candidate raised more money, has more volunteers, contacted more voters, or is taller.

The Clinton campaign was very clear about their own strategy until the numbers become too ominous for them. They were like a broken record , repeating ad nauseum that this nomination race is about delegates. Now, the word delegate has disappeared from their vocabulary, in an attempt to change the rules and create an alternative reality.

We want to be clear – we believe that the winner of a majority of pledged delegates will and should be the nominee of our party. And we estimate that after the Oregon and Kentucky primaries on May 20, we will have won a majority of the overall pledged delegates According to a recent news report, by even their most optimistic estimates the Clinton Campaign expects to trail by more than 100 pledged delegates and will then ask the superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters.

But of course superdelegates are free to and have been utilizing their own criteria for deciding who our nominee should be. Many are deciding on the basis of electability, a favorite Clinton refrain. And if you look at the numbers, during a period where the Clinton campaign has been making an increasingly strident pitch on electability, it is clear their argument is failing miserably with superdelegates.

Since February 5, the Obama campaign has netted 107 superdelegates, and the Clinton campaign only 21. Since the Pennsylvania primary, much of it during the challenging Rev. Wright period, we have netted 24 and the Clinton campaign 17.

At some point – we would argue that time is now – this ceases to be a theoretical exercise about how superdelegates view electability. The reality of the preferences in the last several weeks offer a clear guide of how strongly superdelegates feel Senator Obama will perform in November, both in building a winning campaign for the presidency as well as providing the best electoral climate across the country for all Democratic candidates.

It is important to note that Senator Obama leads Senator Clinton in superdelegate endorsements among Governors, United States Senators and members of the House of Representatives. These elected officials all have a keen sense for who our strongest nominee will be in November.

It is only among DNC members where Senator Clinton holds a lead, which has been rapidly dwindling.

As we head into the final days of the campaign, we just wanted to be clear with you as a party leader, who will be instrumental in making the final decision of who our nominee will be, how we view the race at this point.

Senator Obama, our campaign and our supporters believe pledged delegates is the most legitimate metric for determining how this race has unfolded. It is simply the ratification of the DNC rules – your rules – which we built this campaign and our strategy around.


more at:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/7/93935/99400/731/510830
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Muttocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
1. if that's true, it's even sadder how much money Dems have spent
on this long primary. Money that could have gone toward general election and more importantly, social, environmental, public work causes, heck, even a payment toward the national debt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quantass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. On the Plus side ... it introduced many voters to President Obama!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muttocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. yeah, I hope we'll look back and say that. Hate the huge amounts of $$ though. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kittycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:14 AM
Response to Original message
2. Because she wants 2012. So she destroys Obama
and says I told you so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #2
14. she helped out doing it to kerry cause she wanted '08. not new. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
3. Why? Can you spell m-e-g-a-l-o-m-a-n-i-a?
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
4. Tell us something we don't know, asshole. Something like the campaign is shutting down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
5. So it is time to shut the campaign down.
Go away Hillary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
6. I've said this before and it got labelled "flamebait" but I believe THIS is why:
Edited on Wed May-07-08 09:23 AM by Triana
Hillary was a TOOL of the Republican Party and she KNEW it. She had a job to do: BLOODY up Obama and KEEP the nastiness and fighting between them going on as long as possible so that by the time the GE started, it would be ugly and fresh in everyone's minds and cause Obama to lose.

Her MISSION was to DESTROY Obama and the Republicans/Limbaugh put her on that mission for that purpose. HOW ELSE can one explain the REPUBLICAN-style attacks, lies, smears, and her coziness with them all during her campaign? THEY WERE WORKING TOGETHER to destroy Obama in the GE and this Operation Chaos thing of Limbaugh's is only the tip of the iceberg - the canary in the coalmine as it were, that gives a clue as to what Hillary's true motives and objective was.

IT ALSO EXPLAINS why she is CONTINUING on even after we HAVE our nominee. HER JOB - as set out by the Republicans and Limbaugh - is to KEEP BLOODYING up Obama as long as she possibly can.

IT'S NOT ABOUT WINNING. Not anymore and having analyzed this whole situation in my mind, I don't think it has EVER been about Hillary winning. It has been purely about destroying Obama and using every Republican trick in the book to do it with Hillary as TOOL. That was the PLAN and it still is. Hillary as a Republican operative. She used to be a Republican and I believe largely, she still is. WHY ELSE would she do this?

Operation Chaos:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/is-limbaughs-op.html

Call it flamebait if you want but that is my analysis of it. :tinfoilhat: maybe but I think there's a LOT to this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. i think so. i think clear back in 2004 there was an agreement made between
bush, mccain and clintons.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #6
19. What about all the donors who have given them all this money
over the last few years - does that make her feel obligated to them to give it everything she's got or else lose convincingly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. I would have thought that her obligation to supporters and donors would have been..
Edited on Wed May-07-08 09:55 AM by Triana
...to use the money wisely, run a half-decent campaign, and to try to AVOID the usual Republican slash -n- burn tactics, the race and class-baiting, and NOT get into political bed with Reps to destroy another Dem opponent in the same party.

But she didn't see fit to honor their support OR the party in general in that manner - for some reason.

I have said before and will repeat -- that I don't have any animosity or problem with Hillary supporters. They're all good people. They supported who they liked best. It was HILLARY I took issue with (and ranted about) and the way she ran her campaign. As for her supporters, I feel bad for them that the person they believed in didn't have the integrity to honor their support and use their money better than this.

I think she didn't because she was (possibly) knowingly being used as a tool by Republicans to destroy Obama and her supporters were simply unwitting pawns in the thing - giving their support and money to their candidate thinking she had their and the country's and the party's best interest at heart, when she obviously didn't - and of course they didn't WANT to believe that. Can't blame 'em.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #6
22. Many of Gore and Kerry's people would agree with this - eyes wide open now.
Edited on Wed May-07-08 10:01 AM by blm
It took Clintons doing their deeds OPENLY against Obama to wake up those who didn't notice their sabotage of other Dems behind the scenes in the last few election cycles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. I think so. Bill outwardly supported Kerry in 2004 -
- but WHAT was going on behind the scenes? And in 2000?

I think The Clintons have been finally outed. They've made a good pretense of supporting Dems - but they don't. They work to destroy them behind the scenes - and in THIS election - they did it right in front of everyone.

True colors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
7. Yo, wrap it up, B!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DS1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. ha hah!
great sketch
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newportdadde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
9. Never underestimate the human ego.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goodnevil Donating Member (260 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
11. Is it just me
or does her campaign have more leaks than something that has tons of leaks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EnviroBat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
12. If they can't win then, by God, Obama's not going to win either.
That's been the failing "strategy" all along. These assholes need to go the fuck away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Medusa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
13. She's running for 2012. If she keeps flinging the mud at Obama,
she damages his chances for winning the GE and she knows it. SHe knows there is no other reason for her to stay in at this point except to destroy his chances, and our party. It's all about her and her immense ego. It isn't about our party and I wish that her enablers could recognize that but they seem to be as delusional to this as Hillary is. Boot her out NOW!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
17. "An uphill battle"?? Thus spake Sisyphus.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mooney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
18. I've been saying exactly that whenever someone has said that Obama couldn't "close the deal."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
21. Been saying this for a few months and some here attacked me as a liar, as if their darling Clintons
Edited on Wed May-07-08 09:59 AM by blm
wouldn't BETRAY the Democratic party by actively undermining the KNOWN NOMINEE.

Fock Clintons and their whole team of lying thugs.

Fock the corporate media who provided the Clintons with all the cover they needed to LIE TO DEM VOTERS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC