Thursday, May 01, 2008
|
|
Another Judas
|
|
Posted by:
Amanda Carpenter at
11:22 AM
|
Former DNC Chairman Joe Andrew is abandoning Hillary for Barack.
Andrews, a superdelegate, originally endorsed Hillary last November but announced today he thinks Barack is a better candidate to win the general election.
In an open letter Andrew writes:
My endorsement of Senator Obama will not be welcome news to my friends and family at the Clinton campaign. If the campaign's surrogates called Governor Bill Richardson, a respected former member of President Clinton's cabinet, a "Judas" for endorsing Senator Obama, we can all imagine how they will treat somebody like me. They are the best practitioners of the old politics, so they will no doubt call me a traitor, an opportunist and a hypocrite. I will be branded as disloyal, power-hungry, but most importantly, they will use the exact words that Republicans used to attack me when I was defending President Clinton. Update: This part of his letter took me aback. It implies the Republican party discriminates on race, gender and religion. Read it for yourself:
The difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is that you are always welcome in the Democratic Party.
Because Democrats don’t care if you are black or white or brown or a nice shade of green, you are welcome in the Democratic Party.
We don’t care if you pray in a church or a synagogue or a temple or a mosque, or just before math tests, you are welcome in the Democratic Party.
We don’t care if you are young or old, or just don’t want to tell your age, you are welcome in the Democratic Party.
We don’t care what gender you are, or what gender you want to hold hands with; as long as you want to hold hands, you are welcome in the Democratic Party.
We don’t care about the size of your bank account, just the size of your heart; and we don’t care where you are today, just where you dream you want to be tomorrow.
That is your Democratic Party. That is Barack Obama's Democratic Party. That is the Party that will win in November.
|
|
The Risk Analysis for superdelegates has a quirk that I’ve not heard anyone talk about --it’s not as simple as watching the race, weighing the odds, holding their bets until the winner starts breaking away, then plunking down their bet to have a place inside the winner’s circle.
The quirk is this: they can have it ALL ways --almost like when there is more than one solution, both correct but non-identical, in a complicated hedge formulation. Specifically, if they go long Obama and short Clinton, by sticking with Obama OR by deciding on Obama soon OR by switching from Clinton over to Obama at any point in time, as Andrew just did, their position is in the money with a massive constituency, heavy on new registrants and long-future-voting-life youth. It doesn’t matter if Hillary is pulling away or not --they win on this, regardless. Then, if Hillary is the one who somehow breaks the tape, they jump in with her and the standard loyal democrat hedge wins for them also, even if she loses to McCain.
The quirk is a huge problem for Hillary because the math just doesn’t work the other way through --they lose the first as a Clinton Supporter, and probably net zero with the Obama crowd when they finally place their late, loyalty bet.
I am now convinced there’s no way Hillary gets nominated --HER only good bet will ultimately be to help McCain beat Obama, which I believe she will seek invisibly to do.
|
|
|
He forgot to mention that the Dem/libs only recognize groups, not individuals. |
|
|
|