SUPERDELEGATE WATCH: CT LIEBERCRAT set to endorse Hillary Clinton?

This isn't a long diary. But someone should be writing about the assinine superdelegates who are voting to basically drag this primary battle out till the late August convention. (when instead they should be voting to end it!)

Since the historic 2006 Lamont victory, I've liked to think that CT Democrats have had our heads screwed on straight and are looking to the future.

Up until now, there has been only one superdelegate to declare for the Clintons, and that was Stamford DNC member Ellen Camhi who did so very early in the process. OTOH, seven superdelegates including almost our entire CT Congressional delegation, have endorsed Obama.(the only exception being Joe Courtney, who sits on the Armed Services committee, where he needs HRC's support in order to get a 2nd submarine/year to be built in New London.)

Well, that was the positive landscape until today, when I heard it from a Hartford reporter that AFL-CIO President, Liebercrat, and former CT State Chair John Olsen is set to endorse Hillary Clinton. Good Grief!

This has since been confirmed by an insider and friend of mine who in fact spoke directly with Olsen several days ago.

(more after the flip)

From what I understand, people like Senator Dodd and Rosa DeLauro have been in contact with the former State Chair, but Olsen is unmovable. What he has been telling people is that his wife Janine really likes Hillary. Bravo! Background: Olsen is the same guy who spoke and cried at our anti-war rallies, then fell in line behind mad-hawk Lieberman...

Look, if John Olsen had come out for Hillary from the get-go, I wouldn't be so incensed. Or if he had even endorsed before our Super Tuesday primary. But at this point Olsen would essentially be voting for a prolonged civil war that can only benefit the Republicans.

So maybe it's time that Mr. Olsen hear from the people. Up until he officially endorses there is still hope that he'll refrain from taking our Party to the brink of destruction.

His official contact info:
http://www.ctaflcio.org/...
Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone] ext. 227

PS-- I have his cell phone, but I don't think it's appropriate to post it here. However, if anyone needs it, feel free to email me at deanfan84 at yahoo dot com.

(UPDATE: Some people seem confused by my use of the word "Liebercrat". That is simply the term that CT bloggers use when referring to those Dems who stuck with Joe and worked against Dem nominee Ned Lamont during the fall of 2006.)

•  Please

  I support Obama but this is ridiculous. The best thing that can happen for Obama right now is that all the superdelegates endorse sooner rather than later - and that includes the ones that support Hillary. In case you hadn't noticed, every time Clinton announces a superdelegate Obama announces one more. And if they continue to split 50-50 and a few endorse every day this thing will be over in no time.

  The only thing that makes it continue to play out is uncertainty. Endorsements are good - period - even if they don't go the way we want them to.

  And people who support Hillary are still democrats and we still need their vote in November; treating them as traitors is no way to make them feel favorably towards us. It's not what Obama would want us to do. It's what the Republicans would do in fact.

  by sab39 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:35:08 PM PDT

  •  I'm sorry if you think I'm treating Olsen as a

    traitor. That's not my intention.

    But he is blunder-headed, and he's not in sync with the CT Democratic Party, and yeah, sometimes I wonder if he's for sale.

    But that's not the point. The point is I care about building our Congressional majorities much more than I do about which egoist becomes our nominee.

    This latest "surge" of superdelegates is allowing HRC to claim momentum, and said momentum will be her excuse for dragging this out until the late-August primary, despite the cost and fall-out for our Party.

    So no, I don't hate John Olsen. But he should know that Dems will hold him accountable if this primary fight drags on through a long, hot summer.

    by TrueBlueCT on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:40:18 PM PDT

    •  I still disagree

      Since PA Obama has got almost twice as many supers as HRC (last I checked the count was 9-5). If there's momentum there it's pretty clear where it lies.

      by sab39 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:43:54 PM PDT

      •  Agreed

        Leave the man alone.

        by Craig Hickman on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:47:16 PM PDT

    •  Oh and...

      "Lieber" anything is cleary a reference to party treason.

      It's also entirely disingenuous to use for a Hillary supporter as, after all, the whole problem with Lieberman is that he's NOT supporting, among others, Hillary.

      by sab39 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:46:07 PM PDT

      •  Hey, here in Connecticut,

        anyone who stuck with Lieberman after the primary is always referred to as "Liebercrat".

        Olsen blocked the national AFL-CIO from endorsing Lamont, and he is very much responsible for Revoltin' Joe's re-election.

        Now that Joe is working to elect John McCain, do you think Olsen has apologized to the Party?

        by TrueBlueCT on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:49:36 PM PDT

        •  Why didn't you say that sooner?

          That's all you needed to say. To be fair, what you're describing sounds like a natural Hillary Clinton supporter so I don't know why we should be surprised.

          by bmozaffari on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:52:12 PM PDT

        •  It would be helpful to put this in an update

          or change the title. For those of us NOT familiar with CT politics, the term seems to have a different meaning than it does locally.

          by sab39 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:53:49 PM PDT

  •  agreed

    former state chair? Hillary?

    picture displayed next to online dictionary entry for "moot", eh?

    by wystler on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:44:21 PM PDT

•  Hillary seems so relaxed for someone who's behind

  I have a feeling that she knows that enough unannounced Superdelegates are on her side.

  by Pazuzu on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:39:45 PM PDT

  •  Our CT Dem Chairwoman, Nancy DiNardo,

    publicly stated that she is holding out for "bargaining power". I wonder what it is that she wants to bargain for?

    by TrueBlueCT on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:41:19 PM PDT

  •  I just posted something similar down below.

    I am verrry suspicious right now about all the glee in the Hillary camp despite insurmountable numbers... very suspicious... It used to be Hillary's camp alone that spun things positively, but no supers came out for them for a long time so you shrugged it off.  Now they're acting very gleeful and the supers are coming out.

    by LJW on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:43:20 PM PDT

    •  They believe their own spin, I guess.

      The supers will not overturn the expressed will of the voters.  This is over.

      Maybe they're gleeful because they're getting some supers, when for a long time they got none, but at the end of the day, it's too little, too late.

      by DrJeremy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:49:09 PM PDT

      •  superdelegates don't have a brain

        Ok, maybe that came out wrong (maybe!). What I mean is that they don't have a collective thinking mechanism to decide whether they should or should not overturn the will of the people. Over 260 of them have already pledged to do just that, to overturn the will of the people.

        On the other hand it is for the exact same reason that I doubt over 75% of them will suddenly decide to endorse the trailing candidate.

        by bmozaffari on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:55:18 PM PDT

        •  Ok. How about

          no super who has not declared yet will vote in a way that could be interpreted as voting to overturn the will of the people.

          Those who said they will support Hillary said they would before the will of the people was known.  Those who haven't declared yet, can't use that excuse.

          by DrJeremy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:58:12 PM PDT

          •  Unfortunately not true either

            Superdelegates are coming out for her every day.

            by bmozaffari on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:03:18 PM PDT

            •  Right, because the primaries

              aren't over yet.  So they can still slide in.  

              by DrJeremy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:10:57 PM PDT

  •  Were are you getting this from? They seem the

    same as always.

    by latinadem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:10:22 PM PDT

•  Olsen is an idiot

  John Olsen at the Anti-war rally in Hartford, March 2006.

  by Scarce on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:40:08 PM PDT

  •  Thanks Scarce, you're my hero!

    by TrueBlueCT on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:42:03 PM PDT

  •  What did he say?

    I'm generally inclined to like someone who speaks at an anti-war rally.

    Thanks.

    by raatz on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:50:56 PM PDT

    •  And then he backs Lieberman?

      Going so far as to undermine the Dem nominee, Ned Lamont?

      Look, if you care about getting us out of Iraq, you don't support Joe Lieberman.

      by TrueBlueCT on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:53:39 PM PDT

      •  I'm just wondering what's on this video

        I don't have the means to view it right now. Thanks.

        by raatz on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:54:47 PM PDT

•  On dragging this to Denver, and supers

  ... is there any doubt in anyone's mind that she won't fight until Denver?  You know, I honestly shake my head when people think "oh if she loses the next one, she has to go."  The superdelegates can pile on until Obama passes the magic number, and I promise you that Hillary would still try to pull shenanigans at the convention.  

  Even now as the numbers are stacked against her, she still must be up to something, and the fact that she has managed to roll out a lot of superdelegates in the past week tells me so.  I don't entirely understand the supers' reasoning, but something must be up.  She had a superdelegate drought forever, and despite recent momentum his delegate lead is solid; even ties in NC and IN will only reinforce that.  So what's up with this super surge?

  by LJW on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:40:24 PM PDT

  •  We were told to lay-off Lieberman,

    following Lamont's August 2006 primary win.

    Honestly, we were told not to pile on, and that Party leadership was working to "ease" Lieberman out.

    A lot of good that did us.

    With Obama clearly going to be the pledged delegate winner, anyone who attacks Barack, or who votes to extend this primary battle,... well, they need to be held accountable for the inevitable fall-out.

    Actions have consequences.

    by TrueBlueCT on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:47:08 PM PDT

    •  "Keep your powder dry" didn't work?

      Shocking :)

      by raatz on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:49:10 PM PDT

•  Obama is very confident that he

  will ahve enough supers to clinch, he needs such a small % of non-addons that just the capital hill ones might do it alone.

  by nevadadem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:47:37 PM PDT

•  Check this: SUPERDELEGATE OF THE DAY

  I've been highlighting an UnCommitted Superdelegate of the Day...(and exposing their ties to Clinton/Old Politics)

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  by butchcjg on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:49:56 PM PDT

•  This SD's decision is consistent

  with what we have seen all along. A disproportionate number of HRC's Super Delegates are non-elected individuals. Conversely, BHO has a disproportionate number of elected officials.

  Very telling, imo, regarding who is perceived as having more pull down-ballot.

  by not a cent on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:50:01 PM PDT

  •  that will become an issue if it has to

    Obama needs from whagt I heard about 50 non-add ons if the rest of the states go the way they are predicted. Some people like Clyburn are so obviosly for Obama he might really need even less.

    by nevadadem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:57:59 PM PDT

•  Gee, who knew Clinton

  was actually a Lieber-type-crat?

  by nolalily on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:56:27 PM PDT

•  Contacting the guy would just be the

  kind of thing Hillary suporters do. I totally oppose the move.

  by Fairy Tale on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:06:33 PM PDT

  •  Um, why shouldn't we politely ask

    the guy to re-consider?

    Again, my big disappointment would be if this thing drags on till the convention.

    If Hillary had the lead that Obama does, I'd be withdrawing my support and pressuring him to bow out, for the good of the Party.

    No one person should put their selfish interests in front of the welfare of our Democratic Party.

    by TrueBlueCT on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:11:21 PM PDT

    •  Asking politely is ok but

      I'm not sure what people that heed your call would be saying though. The way for this not to go to the convention is precisely for as many supers as possible to endorse, even if they endorse Hillary. If all of them make their decision, we are done. We should be incentivating endorsements not criticizing them.

      by Fairy Tale on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:19:50 PM PDT

      •  Again, at this point

        I still worry that a superdelegate vote for Hillary becomes little more than an excuse for her to drag this out to Convention.

        I hear you that the more SD's who go on record, the better. But this "guy" is going to be part of HRC's argument that Barack can't win "union guy" votes.

        Just you wait and see.

        by TrueBlueCT on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:24:32 PM PDT

        •  Yes if the majority of other supers

          don't endorse you have a point. But if they do, Hillary can make arguments till Hell freezes over, it won't change a thing. That's why I think the right strategy would be to make an appeal to supers to endorse whoever they like, but to endorse.

          I think you might be right and me wrong, I can't tell which will happen.

          by Fairy Tale on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:32:38 PM PDT

    •  that will work

      not.

      by annalivia on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:23:10 PM PDT

•  im not about going to convention either, but if

  neither has the clear 2024, then why shouldnt it, dont blame Hillary, if the dems want this to end the S.D will go to one side overwhemgly and give that person the numbers.

  by rigso on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:28:02 PM PDT

  •  That's what should be happening now...

    I guess John Olsen didn't get the memo!

    by TrueBlueCT on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:32:47 PM PDT

•  I thought Lieberman was no longer a Super.

  by ObamaManiac2008 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:05:20 PM PDT

  •  This diary isn't about Lieberman, but....

    Lieberman was never a superdelegate.

    by msn1 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:18:11 PM PDT

•  Remove his contact information, PLEASE. eom

  by Geekesque on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:35:21 PM PDT

  •  Geek, do you think an insider like

    Olsen gives two shits about what rank-and-file people like you and me might think?

    This, like DumpJoe, is yet another accountability project. If someone like Olsen wants to help Hillary make the bullshit argument that Obama has no Catholic appeal, and if by doing so he helps to prolong this primary battle to the point of civil war, .... well, he deserves the light of day and some sense of accountability.

    Again, if he'd come out for Hillary long ago, I wouldn't hold it against him. But at this point in time? All he's doing is to encourage Hillary to drag this out to the late-August convention.

    by TrueBlueCT on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:45:38 PM PDT