May 1, 2008
Forget Wright — The Super Surge to Obama Has Begun (Brent Budowsky)
While the pundits, never missing an opportunity to be wrong, are enraptured by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the party has already begun a powerful and profound movement of superdelegates to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
Today, former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joe Andrews, who served during the Clinton presidency, is switching from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to Obama. Several major Clinton fundraisers have made the switch and more than a thousand Clinton donors have now donated to Obama.
Andrews has major influence in Indiana.
In an excellent front-page story last Friday in The Hill, it was noted that a large number of leading Edwards supporters, now totaling more than four dozen, plus at least nine members of Congress who supported Edwards, have moved to Barack.
The pundit class doesn't get it, though they will be forced to by events. In the coming primaries Hillary is shamelessly pandering to voters with the gas tax, a true elitist view as it suggests that voters can be fooled. Not to be outdone, the elitist pundits similarly talk about what a "brilliant" tactic this is. Wrong again. Voters are not stupid.
It is Obama who treats voters with respect. It is Hillary, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and most of the pundit class who are the true elitists and think fooling voters is the clever move in 2008, which it is not.
Listening to the news, one misses the only important point. There has been a steady and inexorable move of superdelegates to Obama that continued even during the lowest points of the Wright affair.
I predict you will soon hear the words of this note repeated on the political talkies. They will catch up, but you can read it here, first.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 30 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Brent;
I read Mr. Andrew's moving letter about his endorsement of Sen. Obama. He made very good points and gave the reason for his switch. After reading the letter on the DailyKos, I was moved to call him and offer my heartfelt thanks. After you read the letter, I believe that he may have changed the race. Here is the link:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/1/102837/5934/498/506979
Cheers!
Comment by Mike Coleman — May 1, 2008 @ 11:27 am
Mike, thanks a lot, I think you're right, the
move of Joe Andrews from Clinton to Obama is
a big deal plus he is from Indiana. Could
be a game changer and the stealth superdelegate
move to Barack has begun and will be noticed
by major media soon. Brent
Comment by Brent — May 1, 2008 @ 11:39 am
Hmmm…I also called it here:
http://www.thevaneljournal.com/2008/05/dripdripdrip.html
The superdelegate race is over, if he sweeps NC and IND on May 6–she will be forced out.
Comment by Theard — May 1, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
Ditto the above comment. Note that the e-mail address on the Kos site is incorrect. It is listed as joeandrews2008.. and should be joesndrew2008@gmail.com.
Mr. Budowsky gives us another excellent blog.
Comment by Steve Shlafer — May 1, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
Sorry..joeandrew2008@gmail.com.
Comment by Steve Shlafer — May 1, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
are the votes of elites worried about their next paycheck even relevant?
i think the Dems are ostricizing crucial factions of the party by allowing the elite-cronies, Budowsky's buddies, to decide the primary.
if the candidate's roles were reversed, the Obama-Bots would be screaming about "party insiders" and the "will of the people".
Comment by j — May 1, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
Kudos to the courage of Andrews.
The voters need to see this:
Flatbed Hillary
By Quin Hillyer
Published 5/1/2008 12:08:24 AM
One of the more bizarre developments of this campaign season has been to see Hillary Clinton, of all people, turned into an electoral favorite of blue-collar white voters. The reality is that very few people in politics have more contempt for white workers than does this product of Park Ridge, Wellesley, the Senate Watergate Committee, and the super powered Rose Law Firm.
This is the woman who, according to three, independent, respected, credible witnesses, at least one of them a strong Clinton supporter, responded to Southern whites workers voting Republican in 1994 by telling her husband: "Screw 'em. You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."
This is the woman who last year insulted the whole state of Mississippi in an interview with Iowa's famous columnist David Yepsen, noting the lack of elected women in both states: "How can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi?" she asked. "That's not what I see. That's not the quality. That's not the communitarianism, that's not the openness I see in Iowa."
This is the woman whose mentor and philosophical guiding light, Saul Alinsky, wrote that the white working classes were always "[s]eeking some meaning in life, [so] they turn to an extreme chauvinism and become defenders of the 'American' faith. Now they even develop rationalizations for a life of futility and frustration."
This is the woman who tried to foist a massively bureaucratic health care plan onto the American people in 1993 and 1994, but when told that her plan would be devastating to the small mom-and-pop shops that provide most jobs in America, dismissed those concerns with these words: "I can't be responsible for every undercapitalized entrepreneur in America."
(This was the same government-knows-best health plan of which Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan said that "anyone who thinks [it] can work in the real world as presently written isn't living in it.")
IN TERMS OF POLICIES, her actions and positions have been directly opposed to the interests of blue-collar workers who pay taxes. Take welfare reform, for instance. Perhaps the single most successful programmatic reform in the past 30 years, it saved taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, gave people incentives to find jobs, and quite arguably played a big role in a decade of improving statistics in areas ranging from drops in crime to drops in the teen birth rate and the divorce rate. (The old welfare system encouraged divorce by making it in many cases more lucrative to be a single mom.)
Yet her husband Bill not only vetoed welfare reform twice, but did so in accord with Hillary's fierce advice against reform. (He signed it at the third opportunity only to take the issue off the table in his 1996 re-election campaign.)
This is also the woman who has spent an entire career supporting legal positions (and judges) that are contrary to the deeply held views of most white workers. Strong support for racial preferences? Check. Support for partial birth abortion? Check. Judges who rule against basic Christmas displays in the public square? Check. Letting the government take working class homes in order to use the land for big corporate developments? Yes again.
Her Whitewater-related shenanigans left taxpayers on the hook for tens of millions of dollars, while old folks expecting retirement housing were left high and dry. Her treatment of White House career employees was notoriously nasty. Her profiteering in the cattle-futures market, and her money-grubbing in cases too numerous to mention, gave evidence of a sense of public entitlement completely at odds with the values and the daily concerns of laborers. And her opposition even to the middle-class-heavy Bush tax cuts of 2001, if it had carried the day, would have cost most workers well over $10,000 in the seven years since.
Yet now Hillary Clinton is depending on white, working-class voters to power her attempted primary-season comeback. They ought to remember that she and her husband Bill once fancied themselves such racial conciliators that Bill welcomed the sobriquet of being "the first black president." Yet in this campaign season we have seen just how quickly the Clintons have fanned racial animus in an attempt to cause a white backlash against Barack Obama.
Lesson: The Clintons are for the Clintons, and only for the Clintons. They will abandon any voter group the moment such abandonment can gain them an advantage. The Hillary Clinton who is suddenly the champion of white laborers today can just as easily be saying "screw 'em" again tomorrow.
Their votes for her are votes against their own interests and values.
Comment by Docb — May 1, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
Brent,
You are on point! Sen. Obama's response to the Rev. Wright mess has been both brilliant and humane, and that's what the super delegates have seen and are responding to.
I wondered why Wright's tone on Bill Moyer's program was so different than his later appearances. The press club and NAACP appearances sounded like the mythical father attempting to devour his stronger, more virile son. I felt his way, and while I still do, I discovered that Wright had the help of 'newswoman' Barbara Reynolds in the attempted murder of Sen. Obama's campaign. So, its not just the mythical father, but the Medusa-like mother,too. Reynolds says she's "grateful" for the wonderful years of the Clinton presidency. For anyone else who's grateful for those years, there is a frighteningly appalling journal posted - "An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton" - on democraticunderground.com. Voters can read about what a really dangerous pair Bill and Hill were then and now.
HRC"S behavior in this contest is beyond what is usually expected of Democrats. She is working Karl Rove's playbook for all it is worth: pressuring Howard Dean with protests led by her Florida Campaign manager, is reminiscent of Bush supporters' protesting and banging on doors during the 2000 vote recount; both she and he have played the race card, dividing people when unity of purpose - winning government back form the torturers, thieves and warmongers is imperative; she has made common cause with the same people she earlier accused of pillorying her. All this when by any revelant meteric used, she knows - HRC has proposed the largest earmarks of any senator this year in an attempt to appease NY voters and keep her seat - that she has lost the contest.
When people understand the web of connections between the Rose Law Firm, the Clintons, Monsanto, and the degradation of the world's - that's not an overstatement - food supply, they will understand how poisonous Bill and Hillary are to our country.
I wish I could truthfull say the voters will wake up and dismiss this woman out of hand, but so many are still drinking the Kool Aid. There are, however, many of us out here who recognize the peril and are not buying her message of malice; voters who understand that in reality HRC's campaign is like any soiled, shopworn garment left laying on a bargain basement table, after closing time.
Comment by barbara day — May 1, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
Hillary has enjoyed some success over the years, at promoting her hostile personality as some kind of actual eligibility for the presidency, since she is not accomplished by any measure, in the way of an Albright, or Condoleeza Rice. That Hillary is Bill Clinton's wife is still her only ticket and that shouldn't be enough.
Comment by Rita1 — May 1, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
Yes, dear Democratic super-delegates, you know you have no real choice but to vote for Mr. Obama even as he disintegrates. Your thoughtfulness and courage are much appreciated. He (or she) who lives by irrationality dies by irrationality. Welcome to self-destruction!
Comment by Igor R. — May 1, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
I cannot begin to express my relief at knowing that there are so many others who can see through all of her pandering.
Thank you Mr Andrew a milion times over.
Thanks to all of you who have expressed your distain for the old slash and burn ways.
Keep your head up high!
I still beleive in Karma
Comment by robin m — May 1, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
Given bad news over the last 2-3 weeks, Obama camp probably offered a very big, sweet carrot to Andrews to make that switch and announce it ASAP to grab headlines away from Rev.Wright. Such carrot could be heading a US Department or Ambassadorship in Europe. Hillary is a pro, and I am sure she'd understand. But Andrews switch would not sway white voters in conservative Indiana who are not crazy of Rev. Wright spending too much time in Lincoln bedroom and whispering into Obama's big ears during mentoring sessions at the White House…
Comment by Misha F — May 1, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
Misha, are you suggesting that no white voters vote for Obama? Now, Now, we line in a new era. America is a place where everyone has the opportunity to run for president. Haven't you been reading my posts?
Comment by Yvonne — May 1, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
Yvonne, having an opportunity does not mean winning the nomination or Presidency. Yes, I am suggesting that majority of conservative white voters are not comfortable voting for Ubama bin Wrighten. Wake up…
Comment by Misha F — May 1, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
I am a typical white woman, (registered Republican to boot) who is hugely supportive of Obama. Kudos to Mr. Andrews for his very thoughtful actions that may help end all of this to the betterment of our country…
Comment by Sue in Simi — May 1, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
Looks like we awakened a typical white Republican woman in Conservative Simi Valley, CA and she's "hugely supportive" of Obama. Such a timely and helpful reply when Yvonne has nothing more to add …
Comment by Misha F — May 1, 2008 @ 6:35 pm
Misha, I think you better change your thoughts because as you can see, He is winning despite the conservative white voters. Actually, a lot of them are voting for him. Can you say…. Super Delegates?
Comment by yvonne — May 1, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
Sue, you could claim to be a typical green Martian hugely supportive of Obama but that won't change the fact that Obama is as far from anything that Republicans stand for as anybody.
Comment by Igor R. — May 1, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
If you think these Party big-shots known as Super Delegates should listen to rank-and-file Democrats, go to www.LobbyDelegates.com.
This independent website, launched by the nonprofit StateDemocracy Foundation, is the only 1-Stop portal where grassroots Democrats can lobby ALL their state’s Super Delegates to support Obama or Clinton, or even to stay uncommitted.
Comment by Ken Laureys — May 1, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
Thank you Brent for actually speaking about truth. When I get online and read the news and blogs I feel that I have learned what's going on in our country and the world.But when I turn on the television I feel that I am watching archives from the 60s! You're right on when you say they don't get it. To watch Buchanan,Scarborough and Chris Matthews reach to find something in their past to relate this race to is so sad and so inaccurate. The public has passed the television media by. I wonder when they will realize this?
Comment by Kisha Dykes — May 2, 2008 @ 12:16 am
yvonne, #17. Thank you for demonstrating the shallow analytical mind of a typical liberal. First of all, Barack is not really winning lately, he lost his last big primary by almost double digits. Second, did you say a lot of conservative whites are voting for Barack? Where, in democratic primaries? Can I say Super Delegates? Yes, so? Now, that you completely discredited yourself, it's time to assume new identity: Sue in Simi
Comment by Misha F — May 2, 2008 @ 1:43 am
Igor, that's just it. Republicans don't stand for anybody.
Comment by Yvonne — May 2, 2008 @ 10:26 am
2 more super delegates as of today.
Comment by Yvonne — May 2, 2008 @ 10:27 am
Yvonne, there's some truth to what you're saying, because Republicans have abandoned many conservative values.
Comment by Igor R. — May 2, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
I am also a middle aged white woman who is for Obama. Clinton said it best: when one candidate is trying to scare you and one candidate is offering you hope you better pick the hope. Thanks Bill, we couldn't have said it better!
Comment by Dianne — May 2, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
Citadel Press has just published my book, "GRANDMOTHERS AGAINST THE WAR: GETTING OFF OUR FANNIES AND STANDING UP FOR PEACE," in which I devote a whole chapter to Hillary Clinton and how much we anti-war grannies condemn her. I am a 76-year-old white woman who is very angry with Hillary Hawk because of her warmongering, which she has tried to hide since she realized that it would hurt her chances for becoming president. We're not hoodwinked. It is a myth that older white women overwhelmingly support her, as my granny compatriots in the peace movement are proof of. I dearly hope that you are right about super delegates being poised to support Obama. Certainly, Hillary is not electable as far as a huge number of grandmothers in the peace movement are concerned. Super D's, take note!
Comment by Joan Wile — May 3, 2008 @ 10:52 am
Brent,
While I agree that Obama is going to get the nomination and am glad, I don't think it's for the reasons you give.
"Voters are not stupid." You will have a hard time defending this statement given that 59 million voters voted for an imbecile in 2004 after having had 4 years to observe his incompetence. They did this because the Repubs pandered to their fears and since it worked this is why Clinton is doing the same.
You fail to make the distinction between the superdelegates and the voting public but instead conflate the two. It will be the superdelegates who eventually decide who the Dem nominee will be not the voters at large. Yes the superdelegates are going for Obama but much of the voting public is still on the fence given the results in the latest primaries.
Make no mistake, if past history is any indication "voters can be fooled", which is why the Clinton's are pandering the way they are re: eliminating the gas tax, etc. Pandering works and to think otherwise would be foolish if not dangerous.
Comment by Craig — May 3, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
Joan, "warmongering" is a term left-wing nut jobs use to prevent the country from defending itself. Why don't you write a book about how Grandmothers should get of their fannies and fight Jihad? Or do you only care about "warmongering" Americans but give their enemies a pass?
Comment by Igor R. — May 3, 2008 @ 9:04 pm
Igor, why don't you get off your fanny, you and the rest of the people who voted for Bush go and fight? You think the war is going good, so get going. You are so pathetic you are now even attacking grandmothers. I think you are a closet maniac. The things you say on these posts you would be scared to death to say in public. You hide behind sites like these to get things off your chest but your language is so crude it's deplorable.
Comment by yvonne — May 4, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
Yvonne, Joan wants these grandmothers, who are after all voting citizens and will be listened to by politicians, to make it politically impossible to prosecute the war. Yet these grandmothers can do nothing to personally fight these enemies. Therefore, in my opinion Joan is helping us lose to our enemies.
As for criticizing my language, my personality, my cowardice, etc. , I would suggest you criticize my opinions, that just seems more productive.
Comment by Igor R. — May 4, 2008 @ 10:28 pm