Bob Casey, you may or may not know, has not met an issue or controversy on which he can avoid fleeing, lest he reveal his characteristically equivocating and vapid core.
So after insisting he would avoid endorsing a presidential candidate, he changed his mind. And rather than endorse the candidate the large majority of his constituents tends to prefer, he decided to boldly get behind the national front-runner, apparently hoping to curry favor with St. Barack and lessen Clinton’s eventual victory in Pennsylvania
Of course, the percentage of people who really care about Bob Casey’s opinion is only marginally higher than the percentage of people– like me– who think much more highly of McCain because Phil Gramm is a close adviser.
Jim Geraghty at NRO has compiled a nice list– with a little commentary– on the ten most important democratic superdelegates.
No. 1 with a bullet is our old friend Al Gore. Of course, all those in the know suspect there’s a small but real chance that Gore will still end up being the nominee…
I believe one is only allowed to display yard signs one month or less before an election. Jim McHale is on his game, because shortly after that deadline I spotted one of his signs at the intersection of Routes 113 and 401, which I presume is in the sixth congressional district, which is mostly in Chester County and Berks County.
While I don’t know anything about Mr. McHale, I hereby endorse his candidacy, which is my prerogative as a committeeman. He was not one of the rubber-stamp candidates ‘endorsed’ by the local GOP committee, and that’s good enough for me. As I live in his district, I think I’ll actually be able to vote to send him to the GOP national convention.
Of course, he could be a Paul supporter. Or perhaps he digs on the Huckster. Heck, he could be a Bircher for all I know.
What I do know is that he cares more than the endorsed candidates, for whom I’ve seen no signs. He will also likely be a straw that stirs the drink, and that’s what the GOP needs both here in Pennsylvania and nationally.
(In fact, I’m going to put my money where my mouth is and run him some Google ads off of my account, linked directly to this post. This means if you’re reading this, Jim, you should pop me an e-mail at karlub at yahoo dot com to make sure I’m representing you accurately!)
The page on this site tracking PA’s superdelegates has some updates informed by Josh’s ruminatin’ here. No new commitments, just noting a few leans.
Josh’s post is especially amusing, as he feigns confusion over Sen. Casey’s tentativeness is supporting a candidate. What? Casey is unable to boldly articulate an opinion on something? Why, that’s as rare as the Phillies having a mediocre April!
[note for out of towners: the Phillies always suck in April]
Clouds of pixels and barrels of ink are emitted on speculation as to how democrat superdelegates will vote, and what criteria they will use to inform that vote.
We hear from them that “electability” is important. What most of those superdelegates mean to do when they cast this line of thought is have the listeners own mind catch upon Ms. Clinton’s fairly impressive negatives. If I were a superdelegate disposed to support Obama, though, I would probably stop this justification.
Look at the following poll data is three key swing states both parties covet in the general election. Who do you think is more electable amongst the two democrat candidates for president?
Hillary has notched another PA superdelegate: US Rep. John Murtha. This should burnish her anti-Iraq War bona fides some.
Seems to me with Rev. Wright thing is not going to blow over easily for St. Barack. Perhaps a superdelegate-enabled win for her is not beyond the pale. I mean, there are lots of folks unsurprised by Wright’s hyperventilating. When I worked downtown there would be a group of African American religious nuts outside suburban station with a P/A every Friday, when the weather was warm, yelling pretty much the exact same stuff to passing commuters who would ignore them the same way they ignore panhandlers.
But all those blue-collar union types in the Democratic party surely have a problem with that type of rhetoric. Especially since part of Obama’s appeal is that he was supposed to get us past that sort of thing.
Iowa has a habit of kicking off our primary party. What didn’t used to matter is the fact the caucus delegates determined back in the dead of winter don’t become officially determined until this Saturday.
Hillary, you may recall, finished third in those winter caucuses. This inspired her to start an anti-caucus tune in the aftermath, which she has turned into a refrain sure to become as much an ohrwurm as persistent as “All Your Base Are Belong To Us“. Obama wins caucuses. Hillary doesn’t. So Hillary thinks caucuses are anti-democratic. I happen to agree.
This rubs those Iowans the wrong way, though, and now Hillary wouldn’t mind peeling off those Edwards delegates when they get locked in tomorrow at the Iowa State Democratic Convention.
Turns out, according to this report in the NY Daily News, those delegates pledged to Edwards may just come out of the state convention sticking with the pretty trial lawyer. And why shouldn’t they? That’s who a number of Iowans supported, right?
Would it me importunate of me to point out, here, how awesome it would be if people just all had a change to vote for their party’s nominee, and we counted the votes, and nominated the winner?
Democratic superdelegates will decide the nomination. Furthermore, as noted here, they don’t generally see their role as simply validating whoever has the lead in pledged delegates.
That said, according this piece on Bloomberg.com [ht K-Lo in the Corner] recent superdelegate momentum has been towards St. Barack. Anecdotally, it still seems electability is the main concern.
Who’s electability, though? This recent momentum for Obama seems to be mostly from superdelegates that are also pols seeking votes. Importantly, it seems to be from pols seeking votes with constituencies that have bought into the numinous Obama’s campaign of change you can merely hope will arrive in the fullness of time endured through faith in St. Barack’s facility in immanentizing the eschaton.
So these recent superdelegates are moving towards Obama simply because they want to avoid a primary challenge. In practice, they are merely validating the pledged delegate count, which is precisely what they seem to claim they shouldn’t do.
I guess the real question is what the superdelegates who don’t hold elective office do.
Clinton supporter fast Eddie Rendell happens to think caucuses are pretty undemocratic. [ht Keystone Politics] It pains me to agree with Rendell, but at least I can take comfort in the fact that he is likely to change his mind, especially if his marching orders eventually come from St. Barack.
Dedicated readers will have noticed an interruption in my GOP superdelegate project. To refresh your memory, I am endeavoring to make a matter of public record all people running to be GOP delegates from Pennsylvania to the national convention, and how they plan to dispose of their responsibilities there.
This is necessary because they are uncommitted, and the GOP seems pretty uninterested in providing this information to regular GOP voters. You know, those people the party expects to pull straight GOP tickets with the same circumspection drunk grandmothers use at slot machines in Atlantic City.
Alas, both work and alternate political interests have slowed me down. Among those interests are working for the GOP candidates in my area: Admiral Steve Kantrowitz for PA Senate 19, Mr. Guy Ciarrocchi in PA House 157, and Representative Gerlach. You will soon find links to their sites on the right. Please note Guy’s official campaign site is not up just yet.
I resolve, though, to have a roughly complete list by the end of the month, giving voters three weeks to find it. To that end, though, if anyone feels like helping, please get in touch at karlub at yahoo dot com.
This blog is a Phoenix arising from the flames of Mayor Giuliani's candidacy. Regardless of your feelings about him, you must agree our primary system is dysfunctional.
One answer: If you can still vote in a 2008 presidential primary, vote "uncommitted". Not to be a pain, or a crank. Just to register frustration at our opaque and unresponsive methodology.
