Megan McArdle (April 22, 2008) - Why aren't the superdelegates committing?

5) They strongly believe that Obama is unelectable in November, and the election will be a humiliating blowout in a year when they have a 10 point advantage in a generic ballot.

Posted by AT | April 22, 2008 10:59 PM

6) They strongly believe Hillbilly is unelectable in November, and the election will be a humiliating blowout in a year when they have a 10 point advantage in a generic ballot.

7) They have concluded that both candidates dogged determination to press on have successfully scuttled the Party's chances in November, so whats the hurry?

Posted by D | April 22, 2008 11:05 PM

8) They want to vote for Senator Clinton, but are wary of party backlash for "defying the will of the voters." Hence they are looking for excuses to give her the nomination.

Posted by Salemicus | April 22, 2008 11:08 PM

Undeclared Superdelegates will be flattered, courted, and bribed by both candidates for as long as the contest is in doubt.
Once a Super declares, the good times come to an end with no guarantee of a future payoff.

The Democratic Part has a principle-agent problem.

Posted by heedless | April 22, 2008 11:44 PM

Could it be the same as not being able to get a guy to commit?

Posted by D | April 22, 2008 11:45 PM

Ugh, Should be "principal-agent"

Posted by heedless | April 22, 2008 11:46 PM

"My question is if the media really is an all-powerful force shaping the debate, why can't we band together and tell everyone that the race is over, thus making it true? Where's the vast media conspiracy when you need it?"

What motive do they have to do so? It helps them ratings for the race to continue. I would be looking for the conspiracy in the other direction. I don't really think it is there, but the media certainly has more incentive to keep the race going than to end it.

Posted by Kinney | April 23, 2008 12:05 AM

The superdelegates realize that Obama winning in NC and IN to put a cap on things is better for the November prospects than doing it themselves (as they should have done before TX and OH).

Posted by Mary | April 23, 2008 12:54 AM

When it comes to both the superdelegates from states that have voted who have not declared, and, any person who offers information via the media who writes about Hillary as if she could (1) either win the nomination of the party without stealing it from the black guy who actually won it, or, (2)that somehow this person Americans increasingly don't trust or like would be more electable as a candidate than someone they consistently rate higher in each category, I think they all should be impeached/fired for incompetence.

But, lest I sound bitter and cynical, I have to admit, I love my senators (Mass. native) And, just when I thought it was hopeless, Bob Casey came along. Then, Sam Nunn. The Boss. I stop reading any media person who is clearly feeding off the carcass, like Halperin, et al. (Like they care). Also, I am not convinced either of these groups can change the trajectory for Hillary, except in terms of the timing. By acting, they can accelerate it. By not acting, they can let it play out, but the longer they do and it does, the bigger the risk to their reputation and relevance when it is over.

In February, when she loaned herself money, I said: "She won't make it to the end." I knew she'd have a sympathy rebound, and although she shocked me with the tactic of using her 3 am ad to announce that McCain was her choice for running mate, I suspected it would hurt her more in the long run, and it did. Because she did not raise enough money to stay afloat, and in fact went in the hole in March.

She'll get a small bump from PA but she's even lost my mother's vote with her "elitist" crap. My mother, an 83 year Catholic widow (of an upholsterer) a woman with just a high school diploma, who is still afraid of black men when she sees them on the street, sent Barack a check. She never sent Hillary a check, but alas did vote for her in Mass. Of Hillary now, my mother just
"hhfmps" sharply. (The daughers know this sound means "shameless hussy").

Barack may have a few dings, but she's damaged goods, and he doesn't have to make up 20 points in Indiana with the whole state political machine arrayed against him.

I hope more writers, bloggers and reporters surprise me, and I hope more super delegates rise to the moment. I love those kinds of suprises. But if they don't, I take comfort in the notion that every day HRC spends trying to show how unelectable Barack is she digs a deeper and deeper hole for her campaign and legacy.

Posted by Irene | April 23, 2008 1:17 AM

Most of the superdelegates just want a winner. They're not trying to help one or the other candidate win. They just want to be on the winning side.

To the extent they are consulting their hearts, they are trying to figure out which candidate will help or hurt the down-ticket candidates the most. Because most of the superdelegates are or were down-ticket candidates. Retaining the House and Senate is important for those who want to be referred to as "Chairman."

Matt is for Obama, so his opinion is they should just give it up for Obama. But Obama is not thriving in this round of scrutiny. It's certainly not clear, especially after PA, whether he can bring that January magic back. His success was about "him." His whole pitch is about "him." He's written two books about himself. He can't credibly divert questions about "him" into "let's talk about the issues." "The issues" did not place him at the precipice of nomination. The impression people formed of his personality, character and leadership style was what did it. If that's just a facade, he will fall fast.

More and more Obama reminds me of Carter '76. Perfect packaging for the times, but deceptive.

Posted by Vail Beach | April 23, 2008 4:45 AM

Boy, people really are losing sight of the real problem here. Why the fuck are there such a thing as superdelegates in either party? The parties themselves have usurped so much power they are probably already unconstitutional on an unbiased reading of the constitution, without even bringing the superdelegates question into play. If they overturn the votes of actual voters on top of all their presumptuous bullshit to date?!

Which brings us to... what the hell is Hillary Clinton still doing in this race? Democratic ideals obviously do not mean one lick to her.

Posted by TK | April 23, 2008 5:07 AM

I somehow mistrust people who love Ted Kennedy. But then who knows, maybe the Chappaquiddick woman was a shameless hussy, and deserved what she got after all.

Posted by Joe | April 23, 2008 5:08 AM

Much as I hate the Republicans (dated too may), I have to give them credit for wanting to actually win. The Republicans pretty much HATE McCain but realized quickly that he was the only candidate with a shot at winning this time around so they nominated him. The Democrats, on the other hand, seem to want to lose so long as they lose with "honor". Honor meaning the meaningless moral high ground from which to criticize the winners, while the winners actually enact and instrument policy.

Posted by themightypuck | April 23, 2008 5:40 AM

Here's a radical suggestion. Maybe we don't need any complicated theories about why the superdelegates who haven't endorsed anyone aren't endorsing anyone. Sometimes the best explanation is the simplest. Maybe superdelegates who haven't announced who they are supporting haven't announced because they don't know who they're supporting.

These superdelegates intend to cast their vote for whichever candidate comes out of the primaries with the most pledged delegates. In their view, that candidate represents the considered choice of the rank and file of the party, and they intend to cast their vote in a way that respects that fact. They anticipate that they'll be voting for Barack Obama, but they won't know until the primaries are over. If the Obama campaign craters between now and then and Hillary overtakes Obama in the delegate count, they would then throw their support to Hillary. They don't have a dog in this fight. They just want to ratify the candidate chosen by the party faithful.

This seems to me a perfectly reasonable attitude to have, and attributing it to uncommitted superdelgates has the added virtue of taking them at their word and not having to posit unspoken fears or self-serving cowardice.

Nate

Posted by Nate W. | April 23, 2008 8:45 AM

Megan, come back to your econoblogging roots. Like Krugman, your emotional involvement is clouding your analysis.

Duh:

0) They are politicians, and once they declare, their rent-seeking opportunities decrease by at least an order of magnitude. They are getting nice dinners, baseball games, and offers of support on their pet projects, all of which will dry up as soon as they sign on the dotted line.

Posted by J Mann | April 23, 2008 9:25 AM

As Matt points out, they undoubtedly already know which way they're going to go, so why are they subjecting us all to this painful ordeal?

It is only a painful ordeal if you are emotionally invested in Obama becoming President.

James

Posted by James R. Rummel | April 23, 2008 10:19 AM

Because you forgot the most important part of the media's creed. Ratings over politics. Once something is no longer good for ratings they fall back into political lines (to the left or right).

Posted by sam | April 23, 2008 10:41 AM

I'll second the rent-seeking explanation and also Nate W's use of occam's razor.

Here's one more:

The superdelegates are waiting to see what new dirt comes up, specifically on Obama. They're also waiting to see the already known dirt, plus any new dirt that may happen, play in Peoria. Similarly they're waiting to see which gaffes, if any, the candidates make.

For purposes of illustration, let's say that a video happens to surface which shows Obama in church, nodding along as Rev Wright indicts America as a throughly and fundamentally racist society, and even catches Obama ecstatically waving his hands and yelling "Amen" as Rev. Wright screams "GOD DAMN AMERICA!!". I think the superdelegates might be fearing something like this, and thus wanting to keep their options open.

As far as I can tell, this was the point of the superdelegates (in addition, of course, to paying off important constituencies): to make it more likely that the party can back away from a candidate who seems good, but turns out to be deeply flawed. You don't want to "lock in" a candidate too early.

Posted by Leonard | April 23, 2008 11:15 AM

"As Matt points out, they undoubtedly already know which way they're going to go, so why are they subjecting us all to this painful ordeal?"

Actually, I'm enjoying the show.

Posted by Tom | April 23, 2008 11:25 AM

"My question is if the media really is an all-powerful force shaping the debate, why can't we band together and tell everyone that the race is over, thus making it true? Where's the vast media conspiracy when you need it?"

Note the conflating of an all-powerful media and a media conspiracy. These are not the same thing. Stipulating, if only for the sake of discussion, an all-powerful media, there is no need to assume a conspiracy to explain collective action. I would have thought someone conversant in economics would know this. As other commenters have pointed out, the media has incentives to favor a more dramatic narrative over one which is merely true.

Posted by Richard Hershberger | April 23, 2008 11:35 AM

Why haven't the superdelegates committed already? This is easy- they aren't silly school girls in love like Matt Yglesias.

Firstly, they are being courted by both sides. This means lots of extra perks for just simply holding out.

Secondly, either candidate can still blow up before the general election even gets started. Why take the risk of being one of the idiots that picked the wrong candidate too early?

Thirdly, to commit to Obama now, after he has lost 3 big primaries just looks bad. He needs a big win for some of the superdelegates to have a solid news story to back an endorsement. A blowout in North Carolina is just what the doctor ordered. Now lets see if Obama can pick up the prescription.

Posted by Yancey Ward | April 23, 2008 11:48 AM

what everyone else said. i'm amazed by the belief that this is all just a formality, the nomination is obama's so whey not give it to him now, rather than later. hasn't the past month or so shown that there's a possibility obama becomes gary hart and the party leaders will be doing the "right" thing by picking hillary despite being just a little bit behind in the delegate count? many people are making this sound like it's akin to huckabee continuing on despite an overwhelming mccain lead. not so. the count is so close i don't see how HRC can in good faith bow out, given all the folk who've backed her, leaving aside whether she's just fixated on the prize, comopetitive, etc.

Posted by dj superflat | April 23, 2008 11:58 AM

I have no problems with the campaign going past June 3rd, or indeed being decided at the convention. There will be plenty of time to "heal the party" (which I think is overblown anyway) between then and November. In the meantime, since we're stuck in Iraq and not going anywhere, the housing crisis is far from playing out completely, gas prices will continue to rise through the "summer driving season" and summer electric bills will continue to hammer consumers' disposable incomes, I see absolutely no good news on the horizon for Republicans.

Posted by liberalrob | April 23, 2008 12:51 PM

I see absolutely no good news on the horizon for Republicans

Well, there is the possibility that the Democrats will nominate either Clinton or Obama.

Posted by Rob Lyman | April 23, 2008 2:13 PM

The Republicans will destroy Obama.

They will chant his name, rhymes with Osama, middle name Hussein. The will talk about no flag pin on his lapel, Reverend Wright hates America, Michelle is ashamed of America. He wants to talk to our enemies, and they will count on latent racism to do the rest all the while not mentioning it.

There is a great scene in "The Verdict" where the satanic James Mason talks to his legal team and says about a key witness for the plaintiff, "And how do we deal with the fact that he is black?" A star pupil raises his hand and says, "We don't say anything." This is their strategy and i'm sad to say it, but it will work.

He'll be lucky to win one state (Massachusettes?) Then we will have McCain for four years at least with Romney (the big business guy they really wanted) as VP.

Wake up! Hillary is the only chance we have and she and Bill know it--that's why she isn't giving up.

VB

Posted by vincent bliss | April 23, 2008 3:03 PM

The Republicans will destroy Obama.

They will chant his name, rhymes with Osama, middle name Hussein. The will talk about no flag pin on his lapel, Reverend Wright hates America, Michelle is ashamed of America. He wants to talk to our enemies, and they will count on latent racism to do the rest all the while not mentioning it.

There is a great scene in "The Verdict" where the satanic James Mason talks to his legal team and says about a key witness for the plaintiff, "And how do we deal with the fact that he is black?" A star pupil raises his hand and says, "We don't say anything." This is their strategy and i'm sad to say it, but it will work.

He'll be lucky to win one state (Massachusetts?) Then we will have McCain for four years at least with Romney (the big business guy they really wanted) as VP.

Wake up! Hillary is the only chance we have and she and Bill know it--that's why she isn't giving up.

VB

Posted by vincent bliss | April 23, 2008 3:06 PM

This means lots of extra perks for just simply holding out.

Exactly. This is no different than the legislative process - they want to extract the best deal they can get. How much does it cost to be Ambassador to Fiji?

Posted by Derek Scruggs | April 23, 2008 3:58 PM

"...they will count on latent racism to do the rest all the while not mentioning it"

Because that's how insidious they are. They are so racist that they won't make any racist appeal. Pure passive-aggressive stuff that ultimately damns them simply by not doing anything racist.

(Feel free to add sarcasm tags to your particular liking.)

Posted by GregT | April 23, 2008 4:08 PM

Posted by Joe | April 23, 2008 5:08 AM
I somehow mistrust people who love Ted Kennedy. But then who knows, maybe the Chappaquiddick woman was a shameless hussy, and deserved what she got after all.
Joe:

Ted's been elected and re-elected for decades after that tragic accident, by voters who pay alot of attention to what he does in Washington as our Senator. And he's a great senator.

Posted by Irene | April 23, 2008 4:41 PM

Posted by Joe | April 23, 2008 5:08 AM
I somehow mistrust people who love Ted Kennedy. But then who knows, maybe the Chappaquiddick woman was a shameless hussy, and deserved what she got after all.
Joe:

Ted's been elected and re-elected for decades after that tragic accident, by voters who pay alot of attention to what he does in Washington as our Senator. And he's a great senator.

Posted by Irene | April 23, 2008 4:41 PM

Maybe the super-delegates aren't sure yet.

My own opinion (for the zillionth time) is that they should ignore delegate and popular vote counts and look at one thing and one thing only:

Which candidate looks better in electoral college terms? Especially when the surething states (dem or repub) are taken out. Who can win the big purplish states? That's the _only_ criteria the super-delegates should be looking at (if they want a democrat to win the election in November)

I honestly don't know who that is. I suspect it's probably Clinton after all, but if is Obama (and it could well be) then fine.

But after 2000 there's no excuse to not make probably electoral counts the single independent variable.

Posted by michael farris | April 23, 2008 4:47 PM

Wait, you in the media ARE and HAVE BEEN trying to tell us that the race is over.. but the voters just keep defying you, even with your obvious prObama sentiments!

Posted by Peter Blood, M.D. | April 23, 2008 5:04 PM

Joe, I'm sure you're equally concerned about the Iraqi civilians who died unnecessarily in the past 5 years. All +100,000 of 'em (deliberately choosing a number lower than most counts) Right?

Posted by Greg | April 23, 2008 5:11 PM

"5) They strongly believe that Obama is unelectable in November, and the election will be a humiliating blowout in a year when they have a 10 point advantage in a generic ballot."

AT, you are a nitwit. There may be people who believe what you say, but that would not be a reason that they are not committing. Those people who think Obama are unelectable would already have committed to Clinton. Read much?

Posted by Dan | April 23, 2008 5:19 PM

To say that Obama will be lucky to win one state is an act of propaganda because it is demonstrably untrue. To make an argument based on saying things like that is really to attempt to manipulate the audience. It is exactly what is wrong with our political system. It is why Hillary Clinton has become an albatross around the party's neck. The superdelegates should have ended this months ago, but they didn't because people are afraid of the Clintons, just like they are afraid of the Bush family.

Imagine, if you will, that the superDs do turn around and give the nomination to Senator Clinton, despite the numbers on the ground. How do you think that is going to play at the convention? I was 18 in 1968 and I remember that convention. This one would be even sadder than that one. There will be considerable Obama people there and, also, the media will be very interested in showing the country how the democrats screwed over the first grassroots movement in the party since the vietnam war.

As for Obama being like Jimmy Carter: Jimmy Carter won, I point out and would've won again if not for the Ayatollah's kids and the deal they made with Reagan. Carter was deserted by his fellow democrats. That was that story. What will this story be? The end of the party? Perhaps. You won't see me voting for a Clinton ever again.

And then there's the 1.3 million dollar donors Obama has assembled. He could, for the sake of the whole party, call upon them to donate to the DNC and the Dem Senate Committee and many if not most of them would do it. Try that with Hillary. Won't happen.

So we, as Democrats, can either have a blowout in November, for our side. Or we can put Hillary in a race against John McCain that she has already defined as a race the "most experienced" should win. And never mind that even now my Republican friends say "monica lewinsky" over and over and over and over again. What do you think they'll be saying if Hillary is the nominee? Whitewater? Vince Foster? Travelgate? Socialist Health Plan? Is HRC really a lesbian? These are the things I am hearing. I know the Republicans are far more afraid of Barack Obama than they are of Hillary Rodham. Chew on that.

Posted by Tim Osburn | April 23, 2008 5:21 PM

Peter,

It is over. It has been over. It is still over.

Posted by Curtis | April 23, 2008 5:24 PM

The super delegates are idiots and they are scared. I wonder how these people even became governors. Hillary and Bill Clinton stink.

Bill Clinton Chinese Connection - disgusting

http://www.ak47world.com/images/clintondeal.jpg - bill clinton and chinese general Zhang Wannian called the "butcher".
Pictured above in the Whitehouse, in a photo that was obtained from the Chinese news agency xxx

Bill Clinton, sitting in the Whitehouse with Red Chinese Army General Zhang Wannian, who was also the primary Chinese Army Official (nicknamed, "The Butcher of Bejing") who ordered the slaughter of Chinese dissident students at Tiannenmen square.

Bill Clinton took a CASH BRIBE on February 6, 1996 (in the Whitehouse) for an import permit for the May 1996 smuggling of $8 million dollars worth of FULLY-AUTOMATIC Chinese AK-47s via the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) ship the 'EMPRESS PHOENIX", that was uncovered by an ATF undercover agent named Gary Hipple, and later code-named "OPERATION DRAGONFIRE", and how close the FBI, ATF, and U.S. Customs investigators came to PUTTING BILL CLINTON IN JAIL!!!

Bill and Hillary Clinton don't care about people - they care about money.

Bill speaks in china for million of dollars and ignore events like this going on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joaFOU2EYQE&feature=related

China sells human organs illegal of religious people including tibetans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vuqa9VkwdCg&feature=related

China Kills people who are religious

Posted by dreamer | April 23, 2008 5:26 PM

"They strongly believe that Obama is unelectable in November, and the election will be a humiliating blowout in a year when they have a 10 point advantage in a generic ballot."

No, seriously - pull the other leg.

Posted by Jamesaust | April 23, 2008 5:29 PM

The repubs are terrified of Obama, because they know he can win. The repubs HATE HRC with a passion. even rush's Op chaos listners were having cold feet that this could all be benefiting HRC somehow and they don't want her. I don't blame them. I think the supers are afraid of the clintons as they have done things to people in the past that has not been "ethical". all we have to do is look at what they did to Richardson. No, the clinton's know they have lost and any way they are on the ticket will seem like they were "selected" and not elected, the same argument that the dems made against Bush during the first term. Rush wants that and so do all the repubs, so they are playing nice. don't fall for this, its a trap. her NEGATIVES are way too high, even in her home state for god's sake. I am ashamed of HRC that she is playing dirty with a fellow democrat. I will never ever forgive her for this travesty and as for my vote, I would rather give it to mccain or will write obama's name. so I for one don't in the hell give a rat's rear end to what these super delegate wimps are going to do. as for HRC and her supporters, I give you 24 hours befpre she screws up. has too big of an ego. The repubs are also sensitive about Mccain's ability to remember things and before the dems use that against him, they are already questioning whether Bill clinton is all right up there in the brain dept. They will make his "mental state" an issue if she is the nominee. too many pitfalls to HRC. Obama may have issues too, but people "like" him more than her. as a democrat, I CANT stand her!!!!

Posted by am | April 23, 2008 5:54 PM

When have the Democrats shown any spine lately. We lost the last Democrat with any measurable internal fortitude when Johnson stepped aside.

Posted by Buster Bunns | April 23, 2008 5:56 PM

The Republicans will destroy Obama.

They will chant his name, rhymes with Osama, middle name Hussein. The will talk about no flag pin on his lapel, Reverend Wright hates America, Michelle is ashamed of America. He wants to talk to our enemies, and they will count on latent racism to do the rest all the while not mentioning it.

Apart from the Race issue, the same thing will happen to Hillary. She has a much longer record of associating with the same 60s radicals and terrorists as Obama. Obama knows Bill Ayers? Bill Clinton gave CLEMANCY to two of convicted-terrorist-friends. Obama knows people who might appear anti-American? Hillary has actively worked with and defended the same people for the past 4 decades.

The Republicans will say the Dem candidate is unpatriotic and hates America no matter who it is - they are a 1 trick pony.

Posted by libarbarian | April 23, 2008 5:58 PM

>Why the fuck are there such a thing as
>superdelegates in either party?

There aren't. Only the DNC has them.

Posted by Stormy Dragon | April 23, 2008 5:59 PM

Vincent Bliss summarizes the Republican hate-machine tactics against Obama well. But his conclusion, that Obama hasn't got a chance and Hillary will save us, makes no sense.

Every candidate has negatives. As we saw with Kerry, a moderate war hero can be turned into a radical traitor with very little effort. The real question is, can the candidate get out our vote, and will hatred for our candidate get out the Republican vote?

This is an element the polls don't capture. They ask, who would you vote for, not, how much trouble will you take to vote.

And on this critical element, Obama smashes Hillary Clinton into the dust.

Whether you personally see why or not, recognize the fact: he inspires people. They come out for him in droves. Look how well he is doing after a solid month on the ropes, fighting a two-front war. Think about how well he will do when he does not have to fight his own party at the same time he is competing with McCain.

And however dubious people may be about a black man with a funny name, that's not the sort of thing that brings people out to the polls to vote against him. Very few people, even hard-core Republicans, will seriously believe that the Democratic candidate is a crypto-Muslim mad bomber whom they have to stop even at the cost of getting off their butts and going to the polls. They may not like him, but they won't hate and fear him.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has been the Republican boogeyman for 16 years now. They hate her like nobody else on the planet. They will come out of the woodwork for the chance to vote against her.

Let's face it: for every voter out there ready to believe the worst of a black man with a middle name Hussein, there are several trained over 15 years of unrelenting smears to salivate and bite when the "Clinton" bell is rung. That's why the Republicans have been touting Clinton as the "serious" candidate from the start. They want to run against her - not him.

James Rummel - wrong. It's only painful if you're invested in a Democrat becoming President. Or to put it another way, if you don't want another 8 years of war, uncontrolled borrowing, maladministration, torture of suspects, and our liberties tossed in the trash. Maybe you do, I don't know.

Posted by Manny Jacobowitz | April 23, 2008 6:07 PM

"4) No one wants to be the guy who put the last nail in the Clinton campaign's coffin."

Oh, me! Me! Me!

Please let me do it!!

Posted by AxelDC | April 23, 2008 6:11 PM

You can guarantee the GOP elders wouldn't do something like "put the election in people's hands."

They would have cut Hilldog off at the knees long ago and gone for the jugular on the other party's nominee.

Good thing we aren't like that.

Posted by mcd | April 23, 2008 6:17 PM

After reading this comments list, I finally realize what the problem with blogs is---any old a-hole can say whatever thought falls out of his or her rear end. I don't know which was stupider--Megan's original essay, or all these idiotic comments.

Posted by MediaWhore | April 23, 2008 6:18 PM

I think that the main reason that the SDs are not doing anything is that if they are perceived as having thrown the race to Obama without letting it play itself out, they will piss off HRC's supporters too much -- including the critical demographic of her core support from women, the largest demographic in the party. Because of this, it seems unlikely that the SDs will move behind Obama until the last primary in June. At that point they will be able to say more credibly that she lost fair and square, although there will still be some exposure on the MI/FL issues.

Posted by Brendan | April 23, 2008 6:24 PM

Hagee Says Hurricane Katrina Struck New Orleans Because It Was ‘Planning A Sinful’ ‘Homosexual Rally’» There is audio too

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/23/hagee-katrina-mccain/

mccain_hageeweb.jpgOn September 18, 2006, Pastor John Hagee — whose endorsement Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said this past Sunday he was “glad to have” — told NPR’s Terry Gross that “Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.” “New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God,” Hagee said, because “there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came.”

On his radio show yesterday, right-wing talker Dennis Prager asked Hagee to respond to “the various charges made against him” in a fact sheet put out by the Democratic National Committee. Asked about his comments on Hurricane Katrina, Hagee said “the topic of that day was cursing and blessing”:

HAGEE: Yes. The topic of that day was cursing and blessing. … What happened in New Orleans looked like the curse of God, in time if New Orleans recovers and becomes the pristine city it can become it may in time be called a blessing. But at this time it’s called a curse.

Prager followed up by asking if all natural disasters are a result of “the divine hand” and if there is “any natural disaster that is not the result of sin?” Hagee responded by saying “it’s a result of God’s permissible will” and “that there was going to be a massive homosexual rally there the following Monday,” which he said “was sin”:

PRAGER: Right, but in the case, did NPR get, is this quote correct though that in the case of New Orleans you do feel it was sin?

HAGEE: In the case of New Orleans, their plan to have that homosexual rally was sin. But it never happened. The rally never happened.

PRAGER: No, I understand.

HAGEE: It was scheduled that Monday.

PRAGER: No, I’m only trying to understand that in the case of New Orleans, you do feel that God’s hand was in it because of a sinful city?

HAGEE: That it was a city that was planning a sinful conduct, yes.

Unconvinced by Hagee’s explanation, Prager said “frankly” that critics “can get you” for those comments “because people don’t like to hear that sort of thing.”

Listen here:

In February, after working hard to gain Hagee’s endorsement, McCain said he was “very honored” to receive it. Since then, he has both “repudiate[d]” and defended Hagee’s anti-Catholic and “anti-anything” remarks. But as Think Progress has noted, McCain has never specifically commented on Hagee’s offensive beliefs about Hurricane Katrina or his anti-gay comments.

Given the fact that McCain will be in New Orleans tomorrow, will reporters ask whether he agrees with Hagee belief that the devastated city was cursed because of a gay pride parade? We’ll be watching.

Digg It!

Transcript:

PRAGER: Now, they have you on Hurricane Katrina, quote, from NPR two double-o six: “All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.” Go ahead.

HAGEE: Yes. The topic of that day was cursing and blessing. Moses taught in the book of Deuteronomy that everything in life is either a blessing or a curse. There are days that things happen that at the time look like a curse. In the passing of time, they may become what appears to be a blessing. An illustration is Joseph, when he was sold into slavery it looked like a curse, it looked like the worse day of his life. When his brothers came into Egypt looking for food, what looked like a bad day 13 years before turned out to be a blessed day. What happened in New Orleans looked like the curse of God, in time if New Orleans recovers and becomes the pristine city it can become it may in time be called a blessing. But at this time it’s called a curse.

PRAGER: Right, but what you were saying and, I want to just make it clear that there is a divine hand in these natural acts and you see the divine hand in the hurricane that hit New Orleans.

HAGEE: If God is almighty and God is all powerful, God controls everything. If God does not control everything, he is not God. So the answer of that is yes.

PRAGER: Right. The only question, and this is not a challenge as much as my own theological question to that, is this is really Dennis speaking, not you know, not some official questioner. But if that’s the case so that would hold true for the earthquake and the tsunami, the earthquake in southern California, the tsunami that hit Indonesia. Is that, so is there any natural disaster that is not the result of sin?

HAGEE: Well, I’m not saying it’s a result of sin, I’m saying it’s a result of God’s permissible will. You cannot say that everything on the Earth that happens is sin. It was carried in a newspaper that there was going to be a massive homosexual rally there the following Monday. Ah, but and I believe that homosexual marriage is sin and I believe that it’s an abomination because Moses said it was. But it is wrong to say that every natural disaster is the result of sin. It is a result of God’s permissive will, but who no man on Earth knows the mind of God…

PRAGER: Right, but in the case, did NPR get, is this quote correct though that in the case of New Orleans you do feel it was sin?

HAGEE: In the case of New Orleans, their plan to have that homosexual rally was sin. But it never happened. The rally never happened.

PRAGER: No, I understand.

HAGEE: It was scheduled that Monday.

PRAGER: No, I’m only trying to understand that in the case of New Orleans, you do feel that God’s hand was in it because of a sinful city?

HAGEE: That it was a city that was planning a sinful conduct, yes.

PRAGER: Ok, so that is the only I think, frankly, it’s the only one they can get you on because people don’t like to hear that sort of thing. But even so, I think that, I’ve always given religious people leeway, religious leaders on saying that we ourselves have sinned, and God has his own judgments. I mean the prophets used to do that, so that’s you know, that’s up to anybody to interpret the way they want. I mean, when the left says that we sin against the environment and we end up getting x or y, nobody says that that’s illegitimate.

HAGEE: Well, I know that in our society, that is what I call politically correct, no one likes to hear that there is a God who has the power to correct man for his behavior that does not fall within the parameters of the word of God. That’s why secular humanists hate the bible because it gives a definite standard of right and wrong. There’s light and darkness, there’s wheat and pears, there’s sheep and goats. You can’t be all things to all people. You either do live by the word of God or you don’t live by the word of God. And there’s nothing in between. And…and our secular permissive society, that’s just a hateful idea.

PRAGER: Alright, I’m going to let you go, but…and I’m going to take calls that are coming in on this.

Posted by John Mccain's buddy hagee makes disgusting comments on air | April 23, 2008 6:42 PM

Obama is so unelectable Rush Limbaugh mobilized voters for HRC. Put the Kool-Aid down.

Posted by Jim C. | April 23, 2008 7:07 PM

The problem is that the media has a vested interest in making this primary go all the way to the convention. What's better for ratings than these two candidates slugging it out?

24-hour cable news is killing America.

Posted by Teresa Valdez Klein | April 23, 2008 7:17 PM

The Clinton's have to raise enough money to campaign and clear debt before they leave the race. OR they haved badgered the super delegates for delay at each turn of the race. Beg, Borrow or
Steal the super delegates nothing is too shameful.

The narrative of this race is being dictated by the Clinton's and MSM. The MSM is echoing all the arguments and changing the landscape from delegates to the electoral college because it means higher viewer interest and more advertising dollars.

Further while everyone obsesses over the white working class the African American base is being taken for granted. The Clinton's and everyone else assumes that the African American base will forgive the race bating and divisive nature of the Clinton campaign.

The Clintons are wearing the cloak and arguments of the Republicans.

Posted by Julia | April 23, 2008 7:21 PM

Does anyone really believe that Hillary has been vetted? The GOP is sitting on TONS of oppo research on her.

Just her role in the pardons alone will scuttle her. She starts with over 50% negatives, if she's the nominee she'll be less popular than GWB by the time the general rolls around.

So Mrs Clinton, what was the quid pro quo for the Mark Rich pardon? How much of that $109 million in revenue did he throw your way?

Travelgate, filegate et al stopped because Bill left office, not because the GOP was out of ammo. Besides, do you REALLY think Bill hasn't gotten a BJ in the last 8 years? Did he get it from Hillary?

Posted by Erik in Maine | April 23, 2008 7:26 PM

What the SDs out to be more concerned about is millions of Democrats abandoning the party should the Bill and Hillary vaudeville act succeed in destroying Obama. It;s no wonder the Republicans mock us ... utterly inept at every pass. That being said, Barack's speech in Indiana last night gave me some hope that he's had enough of the nonsense and is going to come out swinging now. One can only hope.

Posted by charlottev | April 23, 2008 7:31 PM

Further while everyone obsesses over the white working class the African American base is being taken for granted. The Clinton's and everyone else assumes that the African American base will forgive the race bating and divisive nature of the Clinton campaign.

This I completely agree with, and it's totally delusional. Black folk aren't saying anything because they are sitting back quietly and silently observing. The thought that Hillary Clinton can racebait the first truly possible Black Candidate for President of the United States, and STEALS it from him, and all will be forgiven, is the height of delusion.

Posted by rikyrah | April 23, 2008 7:36 PM

When does the "Peter Paul" story come into view?

Posted by Margaret | April 23, 2008 7:41 PM

It's 40 percent race, 60 percent coattails. The holdout superdelegates are agonizing over the consequences of denying the nomination to a black candidate with leads in pledged delegates and primary/caucus votes, and waiting to see if the elitist-unpatriotic spin registers with swing voters - and thus would hurt their congressional and state candidates if Obama's at the top of the ticket.

After nearly picking up a House seat in Mississippi (!) last night - they may yet after a May 13 runoff - the Dems can smell a down-ticket landslide in November. It's hard to blame the supers for waiting on a presidential pick.

Posted by allbetsareoff | April 23, 2008 7:47 PM

They know Obama would probably lose in the general election. They know Clinton would probably win, but NOT if the Democratic party alienates the black voters that represent Obama's core of support -- which is what will probably happen if they ignore the "first-place" Obama in favor of the "second-place" Clinton.

My guess is that most of them are hoping that something happens which will give them cover to vote for Clinton, e.g. Obama self-destructing somehow.

Posted by Dan | April 23, 2008 8:06 PM

Many of the super-delegates have not been named yet.

67 of the 308 uncommitted supers are add-ons not yet selected, as I recall. Factor that in and the percentage of uncommitted is not as large as is perceived.

Posted by Bill White | April 23, 2008 8:14 PM

Doomsday Scenario

This is what must be presented to the super delegates:

If Obama has the most pledged delegates (which it seems now he will ) and he is not the party nominee it could very well be the end of the Democratic Party. Not only will they lose a donor pool of 1.5 million, alienate the new young voters as Democrats, they have the very reasonable chance to lose the African American Vote - not only in this election but in the foreseeable future. How could this happen?

As the party loses it's nerve to nominate an African American, while Hillary and her slime throwers make Obama unelectable in the eyes of the party officials they might seek another candidate. Through some mechanics or floor fight Obama does not get the nomination. McCain and the Republicans will see a once in a generation opening and picks Condoleezza Rice or even better for them Colin Powell as his running mate. Powell (an Obama admirer) might do this due to his perceived injustice to the African American community.

African Americans, many who would feel that the Democrats have placed them in the back of the bus once again, will come out in record numbers (70%) to vote for the Republicans in a way to regain some self-respect. If McCain turns left and back to the middle this would probably end the Democratic monopoly of the African American vote and thus greatly if not mortally damage the Democratic Party.

Posted by Larry cerniglia | April 23, 2008 8:22 PM

They know Obama would probably lose in the general election. They know Clinton would probably win, but NOT if the Democratic party alienates the black voters that represent Obama's core of support -- which is what will probably happen if they ignore the "first-place" Obama in favor of the "second-place" Clinton.

And what about the upscale independents and young people who also form the core of Obama's support. I get tired of people dismissing the Black vote, as if the Black vote isn't the BASE of the Democratic Party. Let's see if the Democrats could win Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Missouri, Virginia WITHOUT a strong Black vote. Blue States are usually Blue States because of Blue Cities, and Blue Cities are Blue because of the Black vote.

Posted by rikyrah | April 23, 2008 8:24 PM

I dream of a 3way with Bill and Hill.

Posted by Tim K | April 23, 2008 8:51 PM

Because they know that small town Americans and typical white people will never vote for someone who gets all self righteous about religion, race and judgment after warming the pews of Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years, starting his political career at William Ayers' house and nourishing it with a long and lucrative relationship with pay-for-play Tony Rezko. This guy has audacity all right, but he sure as hell does not have my support!

Anybody but Obama!!!

Posted by Nancy | April 23, 2008 9:34 PM

Perhaps they just like being courted. When they commit, they are no longer kingmakers and lose the power position they have now. Clearly, if they put party before their own egos, they would have ended by now, one way or the the other.

Posted by Rico | April 23, 2008 9:42 PM

Perhaps they just like being courted. When they commit, they are no longer kingmakers and lose the power position they have now. Clearly, if they put party before their own egos, they would have ended by now, one way or the the other.

Posted by Rico | April 23, 2008 9:43 PM

Boy, people really are losing sight of the real problem here. Why the fuck are there such a thing as superdelegates in either party?

Two reasons: Barry Goldwater and George McGovern, two candidates that could really energize 51% of their partys' voters while inspiring the majority who don't normally pay much attention to politics to vote ... against them. The Democrats invented superdelegates to provide a barrier against another McGovern. The Republicans apparently imagine that their faithful will remember history and avoid nominating a candidate who will deliver another 30-70 loss. (Maybe that's why it's often called the stupid party.) OTOH, I was raised Republican, but after Nixon, GHW Bush, Dole, GW Bush, and now McCain, I'm beginning to miss old Barry...

Frankly, this year's crop of candidates seems to prove the old claim that anyone who really wants the Presidency has thereby proven themselves unfit for it. I can't imagine any reason someone who hasn't willfully deceived himself could vote for any of the three - except to vote against one of the others. The only acceptable candidate was Fred Thompson, who apparently didn't care enough to try very hard.

Posted by markm | April 23, 2008 10:17 PM

They want Obama to contribute larger amounts to their coffers and Obama said "NO!"

They want Obama to pick Clinton for his VP and Obama said "NO WAY IN HELL!"

Posted by Ann | April 23, 2008 10:33 PM

Hillary Clinton lost this fight already. It's over she can't win unless she steals the nomination. If she steals the nomination nobody will vote for her. I have to believe the supers know this and are just waiting till she hangs herself. I can't believe they will let the overwhelming enthusiasm of the youths and the great showings of the african american community just disappear. They have to get rid of her now. The same way they have been swiftboating Obama they have to start doing it to Hillary. She has plenty of scandals and associations they can hang her with. How bout her fund raisers to start?

Posted by Deb | April 23, 2008 11:14 PM

Whomever is still making the argument, or attempting to make the argument, that Hillary is more electable needs their head examined. Click the my url and you will see just how off base that notion really is.

Posted by Matt | April 23, 2008 11:34 PM

I wish I had something witty and oh-so-clever to say here, but I don't.

Why? Because I'm through with the partisan pud-pulling that's so popular these days. Politics has fallen, thanks to James Carville and Karl Rove, to a level of sincerety occupied by the WWE.

Here's the bottom line: all three suck, in their own ways. The important question we as citizens must ask ourselves is this: "who is the least bought and paid for?" And when you review McCain and Hillary honestly, you're left with no choice but to conclude that Obama is the only guy who is at all likely to reverse the current trends. What are those trends? Weimar-like inflation (thanks Bernanke/Paulson, you putzes!), artificial energy crisis (4.3 billion bbl discovered in N. Dakota and Montana, anyone?!), Orwellian endless war (Ike warned us...), and so forth.

Is the guy flawed? Yeah, perhaps deeply so. But the true threat to our world comes from the billionaires who are fucking it up for their own fun and profit. If you haven't recognized this fact by now - well, I'm not going to call you names. I will, however, suggest that you re-examine the current state of affairs more closely.

Obama has told those assclowns to shove it. It's about the best we can hope for right now. (My dream is that he revokes Murdoch's citizenship and sends his sorry ass back down under, but whatever.)

And take it from a lifelong Republican voter, who is a Jeffersonian classical liberal first and foremost: throw your partisanship out the window and look as honestly as you can. This election isn't about what we want, it's about what we do not want. And we do not want McCain or Hillary. In fact, we're pretty well fucked if either one of them is sworn in.

Posted by John | April 24, 2008 12:04 AM

Unfortunately, no matter who gets the dem nomination the repubs will send either one to the political slaughterhouse. They will use rev wright and the fact that Obama is black against him, however, they have plotted for years on how to destroy Hillary's presidential run.

If you think that John Kerry got shredded by Karl Rove and the 527/swiftboat groups, just wait for Hillary to get the nomination. If that happens you will see the most dirty and vulgar campaign so far by the repubs. They will make the swiftboaters and willie horton look like boy scouts compared to the "crap" and "vomit" thats going to fly through your tv and computer screen in the form of negative ads and web rumors this fall.

And of course the 527 groups will pay for everything so that John McCain can look through the lens of every tv camera and smugly say "I have nothing to do with these ads - I find them repulsive."

You just watch and see!

Posted by James | April 24, 2008 12:12 AM

you have to hand it to the repubs. they know how to manipulate and play the american electorate like a piano. the right is so anxious to smear obama as a cross between marx and bin laden because they know he will use his base of post-racial, results oriented young voters to chart the end of partisan, fear mongering, bait and switch politics adored by nixon defenders like buchanan, novak, and slime merchants like morris, rove and kristol. what would they do without a clinton in the w.h. to lash out at every day?

Posted by ryan m. | April 24, 2008 8:21 AM

Regarding the media, Megan is absolutely right that they should quit enabling the Clintons' fantasy of winning. It's over.

It is shameful for the media to entertain Rendell and others as they pontificate about popular vote, electoral votes, primaries vs. caucuses, little states vs. big states. The rules are delegates, period. It can go to June, but Obama will have the most delegates.

Chuck Todd was saying this back in February during Obama's long winning streak. Unfortunately, the same Chuck Todd on "Tim Russert" this weekend was all animated talking about the various scenarios Clinton could come back.

The poster above who used the football analogy had it straight on: you would never ignore points in a football game in favor of total yards or some other metric. (And by the way, if you did Obama would STILL be the winner based on popular votes and number of contests won)!

Posted by Marc V | April 24, 2008 10:38 AM

The guy who said the 'nixon defenders' are loving this is right. read the feb. (i think) issue of gq. the article about the hillary haters is excellent. they're operatives who have been planning for her run since 2000. giving mccain the nod was a stroke of genius. his media standing will give him plausible deniability when the anti-hillary folks flood local media markets in swing states. as nixon himslf said they'll 'stamp on her neck'.

Posted by james in virginia | April 24, 2008 10:59 AM

The super delegates ARE committing but it's being done slowly. They don't want to antagonize Hillary supporters who they'll need later. Once there's a clear consensus in the media that Hillary has no chance the money will stop and the super delegates will go the Obama. It might happen after May 6th with the NC and Indiana elections.

Posted by Keith | April 24, 2008 11:27 AM

Obama is unelectable? Have you seen Hillary Clinton's "negatives" number? She is the "least trustworthy" (ie., liar) candidate in every national poll...and the number is approaching 60%!!! It may just be a fact that America is too racist for Obama...and Clinton is too mortally flawed and despised. That's the sad fact that Superdelegates face. They lose either way.

Posted by Cadmus | April 24, 2008 4:49 PM

Hillary has too many faces. Way to many change to keep up with. Atleast Obama is consistance.

Posted by tony | April 26, 2008 2:06 AM

Why aren't the superdelegates committing?

TrackBack

Comments (76)

Post a comment

Search

Recent Posts