Clinton backers need time to grieve
Dem leaders plan to bring together two sides of party
By David Montero, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published June 4, 2008 at 8:27 p.m.
Updated June 5, 2008 at 1:49 p.m.
Photo by Javier Manzano / The Rocky
Staff members at the Barack Obama headquarters in Denver keep working a day after the Illinois senator secured enough delegates to claim the Democratic presidential nomination.
- POLL: Who should be Barack Obama’s running mate?
- PARKER: Dems scale back Democratic National Convention parties from 24 to 1
- LITTWIN: It's just not that hard to s-s-s-say
- FUNDRAISING: Democratic National Convention host committee eyes Web for donations
- FAREWELL: Clinton backers rally around Obama
- READ MORE: Rocky Democratic National Convention page
Mannie Rodriguez would like some respect.
Maria Handley - a little time.
And Diana DeGette will work hard to elect a Democrat to the White House - even if it isn't Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
But no matter where they were on the emotional map Wednesday morning, Colorado superdelegates lined up behind Clinton in her losing effort to be the Democratic presidential nominee found themselves confronting a hard reality - Sen. Barack Obama will be the one in Denver this August accepting the party's official nomination.
"We need to leave them alone and give them some time to process it," Colorado Democratic Party Chair Pat Waak said. "I've worked on campaigns when my candidate didn't get the nomination and there is a grieving process."
And in the five stages of grief, it seemed somewhat clear Rodriguez might be in the angry stage.
He is a Democratic National Committee superdelegate and has backed Clinton since January 2007. Rodriguez said the treatment he received from Obama supporters deteriorated over the months and got downright nasty at times near the end.
Rodriguez said he was targeted at the state convention in May by Obama supporters to lose his superdelegate status. He also said when he and a group of Clinton supporters went outside to talk, an Obama supporter said, "We don't need them."
The ill will, he said, still lingers.
"They have to stop being arrogant because they're the majority," he said of Obama's supporters. "They have to allow us some space. If we're going to help him, we have to fit into the campaign."
But Rodriguez is also pragmatic, saying he would vote for Obama at the Democratic National Convention because, "I don't really have a choice."
'Time for reflection'
Less angry is Handley, who seems to be more in the acceptance phase.
Handley said she knows grief, having worked on Howard Dean's failed presidential bid in 2004. But that was more of a sudden surprise. Handley said she had a feeling Clinton wasn't going to capture the nomination about a month and half ago.
Handley said she will vote for Obama at the convention as well - but just give her a few days, please.
"It's a time of reflection," she said. "A lot has happened. She was obviously my first pick and I really believed in who she is and what kind of candidate she is. But I also believe Barack Obama is a very capable candidate and will do well."
Obama superdelegates in Colorado weren't exactly gloating, either.
J.W. Postal, an Obama superdelegate, said primaries are more bruising than general election fights because it's essentially a family affair.
"It becomes a personality battle rather than an issues battle," he said.
Because of that, Dan Slater, a Democratic National Committee superdelegate backing the Illinois senator, said he saw a need to give them some space while acknowledging the importance of Clinton supporters for Obama's presidential run.
"We can't win the election without those who supported Senator Clinton. Period," Slater said. "People who supported Senator Clinton supported her for a wide variety of reasons and we were all aiming for the same goal here."
Freedom of choice
There are 15 superdelegates in Colorado, elected officials and party leaders who are free to vote for the candidate they think can win in November. Eleven went for Obama - including the last three uncommitted ones on Wednesday - Rep. John Salazar, Sen. Ken Salazar and Rep. Mark Udall.
Overall, Colorado will have 70 delegates and nine alternates at the convention, Aug. 25-28. Of those, 36 are pledged to Obama and 19 to Clinton. Obama won the state caucus Feb. 5 by a 2-to-1 ratio.
Clinton could release her pledged delegates to Obama at the convention, but so far nobody knows what her plans are yet - including whether she would accept the vice presidential slot. And released pledged delegates could stubbornly stick with their candidate if they so choose - as did more than a dozen in 2004, backing Dennis Kucinich.
Those who voted for her in the Colorado caucus also must be convinced to join Obama's ranks - a chore that will fall to people like former Denver Mayor Federico Pena.
Pena, who got the at-large superdelegate nod at the state convention, said he already has started to reach out to Clinton supporters. As a former member of President Clinton's Cabinet, he might be uniquely qualified to do so.
And Waak, who came out in support of Obama about two weeks ago, said she will begin drafting letters to Clinton backers as well as organizing a "social event" with Pena to "talk through things." The outreach, she said, will hopefully translate into widespread support for Obama in Colorado - a key battleground state for the general election.
"They need some time to be embraced by everybody," Waak said. "Then we can start to gear up for November."
monterod@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5236 Staff writers Lynn Bartels and Berny Morson also contributed to this report.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
June 4, 2008
11 p.m.
Suggest removal
crat3 writes:
Obama clinched a stolen nomination with hijacked MI delegates. Sen Clinton was sabotaged by the DNC and the superdelegates of a corrupt, rigged Democratic Party.
The superdelegates failed in their responsibility to endorse Sen Clinton as the best qualified and the strongest candidate to win the general election in a landslide victory hands down.
In repudiation of Obama, the DNC and the superdelegates, Hillary Clinton supporters should work for the resounding defeat of Obama and vote for McCain. I will vote for McCain in a swing state.
It is delusional to think that Sen. Clinton's conceding or over time can "unify" the corrupt, rigged Democratic Party.
June 5, 2008
12:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
rhoadie writes:
crat3 -
If you truly believe that retribution and anger are worthy American principles to guide your vote, by all means become a Republican and vote McCain. If you believe that fair wages hurt the economy by distributing money to people who will undoubtedly spend it instead of loaning it out at high interest rates, vote Republican. If you believe women should behave as men tell them and minorities should be impoverished, impotent, or imprisoned whenever possible, the neocons are waiting eagerly for your support. Obama didn't steal anything - Clinton gave it away.
June 5, 2008
4:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shadow writes:
Democrats and those who support Hillary Clinton need to look long and hard at their party. How can it put foward a man with no experiance, a total lack of understanding of economics, and some very cercumspect bedfellows. You need to think long and hard and do some simple math on how his campaign was funded, the internet? From where on the internet?
Next take a look at those who jumped ship from Hillary to join this very junior senator, who has the worst voting record since being elected (?) to office.
Last look at your party leaders and determine if they did not set Hillary up and steal the nomination from here. How can a man who voluntarily removed his name from a ballot recieve votes from that state, (Michagan)?
Pelosi's culture of corruption seems to be closer to home than she pretends.
Obamas biggest liability is his wife Michelle. If she can not stand the heat of the primaries, look out for a complete meltdown during the general.
June 5, 2008
7:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Shadow,
Same way the republicans put GWB in. If you look at experience Obama is going in with more then Bush in the federal government. Obama has been a US Senator. Bush had 0 time in the US government.
June 5, 2008
7:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
GK writes:
MrCrush
Thanks for exposing your bigotry.
June 5, 2008
7:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
Is that above picture a picture of Balack Obama in whiteface?
June 5, 2008
8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Earl we are still seeing Bush bumper stickers. And he is the king of all loooooosera!!!!! And Bush had experience in bankrupting his business just like he has this country.
June 5, 2008
8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
Well, at least we no longer see Ralph Nader bumper stickers :-) The far left loons were probably too embarrassed that their votes help elect W.
Scott
June 5, 2008
8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
MarineGrunt,
It's called typing to fast and hitting the "a" button instead of the "s" button. It cracks me up reading all of these blogs that slam the democrats. And when you bring up their boy Bush they have to come back with a attack on your spelling or something that changes the subject. But I guess that is what you have to do when it is hard to defend him. Unless your one of the few (28%) that think he has done a good job. Now I know there is a lot of people in this country that are not very smart but I don't believe the percentage is 72%. Grunt now I wonder about you and Earl.
June 5, 2008
9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
kevin3 writes:
Poor Clinton supporters tricks are for kids. Would you like some cheese with your whine? Hopefully this is the last time we hear from the ruthless liar, senseless war backer, who felt she had an entitlement!
June 5, 2008
9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
CWW writes:
I'm glad B. Hussein Obama won, because he will be SO slammed in the general election. Hill might have been harder to beat.
June 5, 2008
9:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
an_artist writes:
this is a grieving process? you have got to be kidding me.
emo democrats that act like the end of clinton's bid is on the same plane as a death, do the rest of us a favor and take a line from one of your favorite PACs: MOVE ON!
June 5, 2008
9:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
CWW
Get a clue. B Hussein will be your next pres. Get used to it.
He will be a good one because your boy Jr set the bar so low.
June 5, 2008
10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
MarineGrunt
Higher than your boy Jr approval numbers.
June 5, 2008
10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Alive writes:
I just hope Michele can effectively convince us she likes white people until the general election. After that, they can get back to holding white Americans accountable for all the evil their ancestors did.
June 5, 2008
10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
Alive
Dont let Rush put words in your mouth. Did you hear about Operition FAILURE......
June 5, 2008
10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Alive writes:
I don't listen to Rush. I figured that one out all on my own. You should try that sometime Danny boy.
The Obama's are so steeped in that crap, one would have to be an idiot or in secret agreement not to acknowledge it.
But hey, even bad change is change right?
June 5, 2008
10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
grunty, do you not understand civics? have you ever taken a college level politics class? do you understand why congress's approval numbers are where they are or are you just parroting rush's talking points on the matter?
regardless of where you're receiving your confusion, the data certainly doesn't support yours (or rush's) position. quick question...if you're blaming the dems for said rating, how do your rationalize the poll numbers listed below?
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). April 25-28, 2008. N=1,006 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.
"What is your preference for the outcome of this year's congressional elections: a Congress controlled by Republicans or a Congress controlled by Democrats?"
Democrats 49%
Republicans 34%
Unsure 17%
CBS News/New York Times Poll. April 25-29, 2008. N=956 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"If the 2008 election for U.S. House of Representatives were being held today, would you vote for the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate in your district?"
Democrat 50%
Republican 32%
Depends/Unsure 17%
June 5, 2008
11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
fmikey writes:
First of all, I don't actively support ANY of the 3 (now 2) major candidates. They've shown nothing to date to indicate they can lead our country through the divisiveness threatening its structure and well-being.
Having said that, let the Hillary supporters cry. Their opinion all along was that she should have the nomination just 'cause she wanted it and, oh yeah, she's a female. However, she is one of the most disingenuous politicans we've seen since, well, since her husband. Hillary's first act in the morning each day was to test the wind direction, and react accordingly. She flip-flopped, lied (under fire in Bosnia?), and set forth nothing of substance. As her campaign continued downhill, she became increasingly strident, negative, desperate, and shrill. People saw through her facade and realized she had only one qualification - that she wanted to be the first female president. Good riddance to her, and hopefully Billy too. And for all you femmes who feel cheated because the nomination wasn't knee-jerk given to a female, this country IS ready for a qualified female president, and I will vote for her when she appears.....just not the current pretender.
Last comment. Just look at some of the posts on this forum, an unfortunate display/mix of sexism and racism (both in both directions), childishness, personal attacks, and cowardly hiding behind the anonymity of this venue. Maybe, if this is the only level of discourse and discussion we can engender regarding this subject, we deserve the poor quality public representatives of both parties which we seem to see at all levels of government.
June 5, 2008
11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
RockLobster writes:
"So, yes this confirms it. Your stupid."
Hmm, how ironic. Grunt, you should be more careful about dissing folks on their spelling. Especially when you mis-spell while calling someone else stupid. "Your" should be "you're".
But thanks for the laugh : )
June 5, 2008
11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Alive writes:
I think the frank discussions afforded by anonymous postings on message boards like this are actually GOOD for humanity. The technology used to facilitate this unbridled look into what people really think is still quite new.
Perhaps, over time, we may well end up communicating better with one another even if some feelings get hurt along the way. Us humans are just starting to get to know each other. And for the most part we seem to despise one another. This type of medium may actually FIX some of that in the future.
Time will tell. In the mean time I will enjoy saying what I really feel. If it bothers you, don't read what I have to say.
June 5, 2008
11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
MarineGrunt
24% that is great. I am stupid. Obama will never be that low. If you dont understand that, your a d@mbass. You do have Bush bumper sticker dont you? My sticker says "I did not vote for him".I bet you voted for him twice, and you call people d@mb!
June 5, 2008
11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
YIOTA
You all discredit yourself by haten on Obama. Try talking up you boy McCain. Give me something that you like about the old man. I dont care about his pastor or if he has a pin on his coat or what his wife said.
June 5, 2008
11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
yiota...those were national scientific polling numbers...they are what they are...which is a testament that the american public aren't done giving the republicans a spanking for consistently obstruction congressional initiatives with the support of the majority of americans. the beatings will continue until they start representing the majority instead of the vocal minority.
speaking of beatings...you're still spewing that conspiracy theory of yours about obama making the us into "socialism".
any links to fact that support that position or can we just write it off to ramblings of the far right?
June 5, 2008
11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
RockLobster writes:
Geez Grunt. Where's your sense of humor. I was just trying to offer a little comic relief. You don't take criticism (even if it's constructive) well.....AT ALL!
Okay, you want me to coment on the article? So be it. I feel the same way as one of the other posters. I think the headline is a joke. Clinton backers need time to "grieve". Give me a break!
I usually don't comment on issues relating to politicians because politicians as a group make me sick! I can say that I'm SOOOOO glad Clinton won't be the president. That much is for sure!!!!
June 5, 2008
11:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Geof writes:
Hey, McCrush, we're reaping what you sowed right now, nice work. And your blustering, fake outrage will never hide what you really are - a racist, fascist, God-grasping, self-serving fool who can do nothing more than antagonise by spreading your bile (a la Anne Coulter, O'Reilly and Rush). Down the drain you go, and I'll have that American flag you stole, thanks a bunch.
Hillary still has a large role to play, one way or another.
Omaha
Betty
Backs
Obama
Where's Osama??
June 5, 2008
noon
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
MarineGrunt
Give me 50 push-ups for being a dork. I dont want read your crap if all your going to hate on DEMS. Back it up with something.
June 5, 2008
12:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
grunty, are you going to vote for mccain?
June 5, 2008
12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
LingLingfor_prez writes:
I like to keep it simple. I don't like politicians!
June 5, 2008
12:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Democrats 2000 - "Count ALL of the votes. As long as they're in Democrat controlled counties."
Democrats 2008 - "Count HALF of the votes. Ignore the half that doesn't support the nominee preferred by party bosses."
Democrats 2012 - "Count NONE of the votes. Just do what Democrat party fatcats demand."
Democrats.... a threat to American voters.
June 5, 2008
12:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
jay.... why not post some other irrelevant polls... like asking voters their favorite cereal, or which baseball team they favor....
Lesson #7 on political polls - polls that ask for party preference are meaningless since voters vote for candidates.
Anyone with an IQ 12 knows that polls that ignore candidates and focus on party preference are notoriously unreliable.
That's why when you attach Obama's name to any policy position that voters say they favor, their support for that position drops like a rock.
June 5, 2008
12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
rickybobby is right on cue...attacking science that blows holes in republican talking points.
thanks buddy...you're always good for a laugh.
June 5, 2008
12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
November 2004: The dejected democrats sat in the Irish pub trying to drown their sorrows. "How could a majority of the people vote for Bush, when we had such a fine candidate?" one Dem asked. "Yeah" said another, "it's like all they cared about was Kerry's voting record, and his changing positions on the issues over the years." They wondered together: "What are we supposed to do?" Then one Democrat's face lit up: "Hey, I know; next time let's nominate our least experienced and most liberal senator!"
Then all the Democrats were filled with joy, and they lifted their Guinesses and cried "BRILLIANT!"
June 5, 2008
12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
RockLobster writes:
So grunt, you ask why I'm not correcting others on their spelling? Hmmm, maybe, juuuust maybe it's because you were the one that had just dogged someone else on their spelling, only to follow it up with a gaff of your own. I wasn't even dissin' on ya that hard. I actually even though you'd see the humor in it. But alas, you've only solidified the fact (as if it wasn't already carved in granite) that you can dish it out, but you certainly can't take it!
Dora the Explorer? Come on man, give me SOME credit. I happen to be a Spongebob fan : )
June 5, 2008
12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Wow, lots of smack talk. I'm not here to talk smack, but would like make a point to Clinton supporters that think they were cheated by the way Michigan and Florida delegates were divvied up. In Michigan, Clinton was the only name on the ballot and thus the only one that could have won any delegates were that 'election' to count. Do you honestly think that was a fair election without anybody campaigning there and only one name on the ballot? Saddam Hussein had similar 'elections' in Iraq too, should those have been recognized?
The truth is those two states broke the rules and were punished for it. Had they not moved their primaries outside the rules then their elections would have been fair and perhaps Hillary would have won after all. Colorado moved up the primary date within the rules and lost some delegates but we still counted and didn't cause a controversy. I don't see why Michigan and Florida could not have done the same. Those were unfair elections and for them to count fully without any compromise would be undemocratic.
You need to face reality that it was not Obama's fault that these two states took the actions they did. You should also consider the consequences of voting for McCain who is determined to keep the troops in Iraq under virtually any circumstances.
June 5, 2008
1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
VIVA LIBERTARIAN!!!!!!!!!
June 5, 2008
2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
Gene
I am from the Lue tribe what is your beef?
June 5, 2008
2:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Like the man said in the song -
"Get Over It"
Obama - 08
Freedom day: 01-20-2009
June 5, 2008
2:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Obama/Clinton 08. And you have no one to thank but your current commander and chief. Just like the elections in 2006 he has been the democrats best tool. Go ahead McSame ride his coat tails. I dare you.
June 5, 2008
3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
Luo Tribe member, is that a racist comment??
June 5, 2008
3:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
I don't think O is from an African Tribe.
June 5, 2008
3:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
Gene
Are you from the white trash tribe?
June 5, 2008
4:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
jay.... so shocked by the truth that it left you speechless....
Name one election ballot in the United States that leaves the candidates names off the ballot, and just asks voters whether they prefer a Democrat or a Republican. Name one. Just one.
That's why NO ONE with an IQ above 12 pays attention to polls that ask generic party preference questions. They're as useless as asking voters for their favorite cereal and then pretending that is an indicator of anything relevant about an election outcome.
Funny how you ignore the fact that polls that DO include the candidate names show the same trend.....
Add Obama's name to a position that voters prefer, and their support for that same position DROPS!!!!
Add McCain's name to a position that voters prefer, and their support for it RISES!!!!