A Convention without Superdelegates?

The title is a bit of hyperbole. Surely Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will show up, along with the CBC. But the head of the DCCC, the political organization in charge of getting Democrats elected to the House of Representatives, has a message for their candidates, incumbents or not: don’t go to the Democratic National Convention. And that applies to all of them.

“If they want to win an election, they need to be in their districts,” New York congressman Steve Israel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told the Reuters Washington Summit on Tuesday.

Israel emphasized that Democratic President Barack Obama’s poll ratings – which have hovered around 50 percent – have little to do with his stance.

“I don’t care if the president was at 122 percent favorability right now,” he said. “I think (candidates) should be in their districts,” rather than spend time at the convention, which will be in Charlotte, North Carolina, September 3-6.

Seth Mandel of Commentary Magazine calls Israel’s bluff, with a delicious bit of snark to introduce it:

Who would have guessed the clear favorite for “least convincing political spin of the year” would go to someone other than Jay Carney or Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Not a single person will buy this spin, for two reasons: First, even if the Democrats expected another wave election in favor of the GOP, the very candidates most susceptible to that wave–less experienced members of the House–would benefit most by appearing at the convention, as it would raise their profile. And second, the announcement from Israel came after Democratic politicians began heading for the lifeboats.

He’s right. And this is certainly not anything I’ve seen in my lifetime. It’s certainly not good; rather, it’s indicative of Obama’s political toxicity and the length of his coattails, which are apparently so negative those coattails are riding up his arse. Mandel is also right about this:

Israel took a story the president’s allies were keeping under wraps and put it in neon lights. Don’t believe the polls showing Obama and Romney just about even, the DCCC itself seems to be saying, the president is politically toxic and everyone knows it.

Well, now everyone knows it.

What are we to make of it, especially since this trend is now affecting Senate incumbents like Claire McCaskill? Will progressives employ the race card against superdelegates who refuse to attend? Will any superdelegates attend? Inquiring minds want to know.

About Woke Lola

Bitch, please.
This entry was posted in 2012 Elections, Barack Obama. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to A Convention without Superdelegates?

  1. HELENK says:


    I am so sick of these idiots. do they understand he is telling them to go to hell along with the rest of congress??? If they are that damn dumb they should not be there. Apparently they do not understand that lying to congress and failing to provide information that is asked for is breaking the law.

    • DeniseVB says:

      Obama could care less about any caucus unless it throws money and rose petals at his feet. Earlier I saw Sharpton and the NAACP denounce the Holder Contempt thingy as raaacisst. Yet, the death of border agents and 200+ Mexicans is okey-dokey ? Geesh.

  2. HELENK says:


    mccaskill on tv today saying all the outcry about her not going to the convention is just stupid.
    I must say this is the first time if have seen so many democratic congress critters that interested in working for the people of their states

  3. cj says:

    It might be a preemptive strike. If the convention turns out to be a poorly-attended joke, the O-team can lay the blame on Israel.

    That’s the best I can come up with. I never saw anything like it either.

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      I’ve seen that explanation, and another that suggests the Dem convention this year will be an attempt to show minority muscle such that candidates in predominantly white, more conservative districts can’t risk it. Neither one makes much sense, but I am also getting the feeling that things are starting to take a contrived feel. I’m starting to wonder if the Obama strategy is to play the victim card with the race card, in conjunction with a few others to perhaps shoot for a political flush?

      • cj says:

        You know, that’s a very good point, I wouldn’t put it past them. If Obama’s good at nothing else, he can always be counted on to play a wonderful victim.

        And they’re already trying to run him as the under-dog as far as donations go, this would play nicely into the narrative. hmmmm.

  4. yttik says:

    This is what we’re reduced to:

    Americans favor Obama to defend against space aliens: poll


    • Lola-at-Large says:

      I saw that earlier. You know it’s bad when the media is pushing the UFO-believing faction.

      • yttik says:

        I guess the UFO demographic still leans Obama. Maybe the convention should have been held at area 51.

      • SophieCT says:

        Why in the world would anyone think that Obama could defend us against space aliens? He’s such a warrior? Such a negotiator? Knows something about space?

        • Lizzy says:

          He is undoubtedly from Outer Space so should has great compatability with them. A third option besides Kenya or Hawaii since he doesn’t really seem to know where he was born.

  5. Lola-at-Large says:

    They are all still predicting the law will be upheld: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/obamacare-predictions-what-will-the-supreme-court-decide/

    I might be worried, but then I remember what economists thought was going to happen prior to 2008, and I realize that America’s professional class is the most out-of-touch group in the nation, after our politicians. Apparently America’s lawyers are the next group to sacrifice their credibility on the alter of ideology. Let ’em. Harvard can suck the shit right out of my ass.

    • r u reddy says:

      I think the Forced Mandate will be upheld, but for different reasons than its supporters do.

      If it is struck down, we can go back to ground zero and start again better.

      About the superdelegates, I have read here and there that those facing elections are being challenged by their Republican opponents to attend the DemCon and vote against Obama. “What is my worthy opponent afraid of? My worthy opponent either supports Obama or opposes Obama for the nomination, now which is it?”

  6. Sorry but I am truly truly laughing my ass off! All those “super” delegate, nomination rigging assholes! We knew they were rats back in 08- and here is the proof. Not one single SHRED of ethics or morals in the whole damn bunch. They gave us an inexperienced, unqualified representative of Wall St, the Oil Companies, the Insurance companies, Big Pharma etc etc etc to make themselves feel good and righteous.
    May they all be sucked bodily in to hell. Wish I had the money, because I would run ads in every damn district where an obblowme supporting asshat is up for election. Ads showing them cozying up to that f*&ing fraud.

    • r u reddy says:

      Republican Party folk could do that very thing. “My worthy opponent is a good friend of Obama. Here’s living proof! If my worthy opponent is a friend of Obama’s, is he/she any friend of yours?”

      Maybe some Republican operatives just read these comments.

      • Lola-at-Large says:

        Am I misreading your comments, or are you expressing some hostility toward commenters in this thread? You’ve got the benefit of my doubt right now…

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          Nevermind. Confluence troll…

        • r u reddy says:

          No, I think Republican operatives would read this blog just as they would read The Confluence or Hullabaloo. For example, commenter Sarah B. used the phrase “hopey changey” on Hullabaloo for months before Sarah Palin used that phrase in a speech. I think a Republican reader of Hullabaloo passed that along to Sarah Palin. If you wish to think I am being hostile, then think what you like. I think you are being paranoid.

          And if you wish to base your paranoia about me based on my reading and commenting over at The Confluence, that is of course your perfect right. Again, think what you like.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          Thanks for replying, despite my being hostile toward you. I’m sorry for that. We do get trolls from The Confluence and RD has been pretty clear about her accusations of ratfucking, especially where I am concerned. I don’t post over there, so I hope you can understand why I would find such trolls annoying and would suspect you.

          That said, I do think your paranoia dig was pretty funny, considering you think GOP operatives give a shit what Digby is writing, enough to pass it all the way up to Sarah Palin. Blogging operatives may monitor some sites, but I doubt very seriously that GOP operatives in the employ of the party do. Too many other big fish to monitor.

        • r u reddy says:

          Thank you for the sportsmanlike on-second-thought reply. I continue to think that Sarah Palin got the phrase “hopey-changey” from commenter Sarah B. on Hullabaloo because . . . where else could the phrase have come from? And Sarah B. was using it for months to the intense irritation of friends-of-Obama. Perhaps it was an amateur blog-watcher who passed the phrase up and along?

          About paranoia . . . I have done some of my best high-speed high-impact thinking while wearing the tinfoil crash helmet. Though always bearing in mind the cautionary admonition . . . ” sometimes you wear the tinfoil, and sometimes the tinfoil wears you”.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          I’m glad we could we could work it out, r u reddy. I’m not afraid of the tinfoil and am aware of the risks. Point taken.

  7. myiq2xu says:

    So the candidates can’t miss 4 days of campaigning two months before the election?

    That reminds me of when Obama couldn’t afford to miss a couple days to attend his racist granny’s funeral.

  8. myiq2xu says:


    Let me quote Ginsberg again. From Politico, June 15. Just, what, twelve days ago?

    Ginsburg noted that one ACA-related question the court must decide is whether the whole law must fall if the individual mandate is unconstitutional — “or may the mandate be chopped, like a head of broccoli, from the rest of it?”

    Must decide.

    The court has no reason to even reach that question if the Mandate (or Medicaid expansion) is upheld.

    That is a question that is only reached if a majority finds one or more provisions of ObamaCare unconstitutional. Courts do not decide hypothetical, or moot, questions.

    If ObamaCare is constitutional as written, there is no question of severability to be discussed at all.

    Either Ginsberg is lying here — deliberately putting out disinformation — or the court decided that the mandate is unconstitutional, and the big question is “What stands or falls, given that?”

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      That was exactly my take as well. There was another option that she didn’t mention: upholding the entire law. And Ginsberg may be many things, but a liar she ain’t. And she does not play political games. I disagree with a number of her decisions, because I think her thought processing has been corrupted by a lifetime spent inside the noise machine, but I do respect her integrity. The lady is not corrupt by any means.

Comments are closed.