My Local NM Superdelegate Steadfast for Clinton, Udall Silent; Breakdown on NM Count

I woke up to some good news today as the paper reported that my local superdelegate, Mary Gail Gwaltney, is sticking with Clinton for as long as the latter stays in the race.

Gwaltney states that:

… her support for Clinton is steadfast. She said she thinks the race, if it comes down to superdelegates’ votes, should be decided in Denver at the party’s national convention in August. She noted the superdelegate endorsements aren’t set in stone until then.

“Anybody can change,” she said. “I can change.”

She is also quoted as saying that Clinton has the “stamina and the will” needed as a leader.

I’m so glad Gwaltney mentioned these qualities, because Obama, while he might have the will, doesn’t look particularly strong when it comes to stamina. As long as things are going his way, he’s bright as a penny, but it’s horror show time if he has to confront serious questions or has to debate. He also mispeaks about where lakes are and the number of states in the union, which doesn’t give me much confidence in his ability to actually do the job of President. But, of course, he will have advisers, just like Bush has had advisers…

The story also details the total number of delegates that Obama and Clinton have:

Obama gained endorsements from 21 superdelegates since Tuesday, adding his count to 276, according to The Associated Press. Meanwhile, Clinton picked up two superdelegates, leaving her with 271.5.

I’m not sure how you get .5 delegates, but whatever. What strikes me that while the shrieking and demands for Clinton to get out of the race grow louder, she’s only 4.5 superdelegates behind Obama.

The story also reports that out of a total of 12 superdelegates from NM, Clinton has the support of 6, while Obama has 4. (There are also 36 “regular” delegates from NM.) Obama’s 4 include the big poohbah Bill Richardson, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, Fred Harris (former DNC chair, and Brian Col n, the state party chairman. Another supporter is an “add-on superdelegate” appointed by Col n. She is Laurie Weahkee, a Native American woman; she issued the following syrupy statement:

Obama has proven that he can campaign in a difficult environment and still inspire thousands of new voices to take part in the democratic process. As a Native American woman, I’m proud to support Obama, and I ask all of us to now join together and start building the movement for victory in November.”

If she thinks this has been a “difficult environment” what about what comes down if he is the nominee? Are these people on the planet??? Has any candidate ever been so enabled and coddled by this party??

Meanwhile, one super remains silent…Rep. Tom Udall, who is uncommitted and “too busy” to make a decision as he runs for the U.S. Senate. It’s interesting that Udall is holding back since he is deemed a strong “progressive.” Maybe he can tell that Obama is blowing a lot of smoke. Good for Udall for not committing!!

6 Responses

  1. I am out of the country working, but found this site linked from Taylor Marsh. The Sandia panorama made my heart clutch. Glad Udall is keeping quiet. Remember Denish is for Clinton.

  2. Oops, just looked at the photo again. Organ Mountains, no? Either way, I miss New Mexico.

  3. ea…

    Yes, those are the ORGANS!!!!!! Glad you enjoyed seeing them!

  4. I respect your opinion wholeheartedly. But I wonder if you realize just how closed off you are being…..

    I wonder what debates you were watching? I thought that both democratic candidates were amazing, including Obama.
    And maybe you forgot about Hilary’s misspeak on landing under sniper fire (several misspeaks actually)…. Or, maybe that’s just you being one sided.
    You know, I think once can be forgiven… Rehearsing a misspeak should be called a lie. How does that make you feel about her ability to be a president. Just like Bush, huh?

    We all need to stick together and stop with the pettiness. This is an important election, and a party has never won that was still choosing at the convention. That scares me. Whatever way it goes, there should not be this bitterness and hostility being spread.

  5. Obama’s connections are wholly unsavory and he knows NOTHING about economic or foreign policy. He is dangerous, in my view. His actions favoring Exelon and his dubious ties to Rezko-Auchi, the latter who was involved in Iraqi oil refinery plans in Iraq make me wonder about his true intent even when he made that speech about not going into Iraq. He may have had other reasons than being altuistic. His talk about Cuba–real intentions? My view is let them alone…what is his “talk” about? “Democracy, freedom”–so that big companies can take over their economy? OH, and Cuba has OIL as well! Read about Boren…my part II in the series…he pretty much single-handedly screwed the Gore energy plan in 1993.

    Obama is definitely a fraud and a poseur. A misspeak on fire, (and there WAS fire in the hills) is nothing compared to this guy…unvetted, unquestioned, given a free pass. WHO BENEFITS??? THINK ABOUT IT…

  6. Well, I am not trying to get into a battle with you. I just wanted you to try to see from a different perspective. But it is obvious that you have already made many speculations in favor of Clinton and have decided to only put a negative light on Obama and a positive light on Clinton…… You question his intentions on his speeches about Iraq…. Have you wondered about Clinton’s intentions for being wholey for the Iraq war? I’m guessing not.

Leave a Reply to Gloria Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: