Sunday Humor: Latest Superdelegate Defection

Bill Clinton Switches to Obama
Latest Superdelegate Defection for Hillary

In what some Democratic Party insiders are calling a particularly ominous sign for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, former president Bill Clinton today became the latest superdelegate to switch from Sen. Clinton to her rival, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill).

The former president said that “sometimes, at the end of a race, you have to put an old horse down,” adding, “I’m not speaking metaphorically.”

More from Andy Borowitz at the Borowitz Report.

  33 comments for “Sunday Humor: Latest Superdelegate Defection

  1. May 11, 2008 at 2:35 pm

    “Put an old horse down”? And Borowitz thinks that’s “humor”? I find it to be disgusting smut that I’d expect to be found only on right-wing trash sites like FreeRepublic. If I were to post similar “humor” mocking Barack Obama as a black man on any progressive blog, I’d probably be banned. I don’t understand why this sexist double-standard is allowed.

  2. May 11, 2008 at 2:49 pm

    Borowitz is disgusting, and so is anyone who promotes this kind of filth.

    Just wait til the right wing really gets started on Obama. Those of you who helped stoke the Clinton hate will have no leg to stand on to complain about it.

    Carolyn Kay

  3. May 11, 2008 at 3:01 pm

    “Just wait til the right wing really gets started on Obama. Those of you who helped stoke the Clinton hate will have no leg to stand on to complain about it.”

    And may I add, you Obama supporters will NOT get any sympathy from ME!

  4. May 11, 2008 at 3:07 pm

    Andrew and Carolyn,

    You are being way too serious. I presume from your responses that you did not read the Borowitz “satire” in total.

    Here is another one.

    Obama Proposes Gas-bag Holiday

    Prominent Gas-bags Oppose Plan

    After a week in which a chorus of television pundits talked about the Rev. Wright controversy ad nauseam, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama introduced a proposal today to silence such repetitious discussions.

    “I am proposing a gas-bag holiday,” Sen. Obama told a capacity crowd in Indianapolis. “Under my plan, all gas-bags would go on vacation until the second week of November.”

  5. May 11, 2008 at 3:14 pm

    Folks, I think it was a little more than a week ago that Hillary Clinton was claiming the popular vote lead.

    At this point, no matter how you count it, there is no lead for Clinton any way you count it. (Well, maybe if you only count the “uneducated, white votes”)

    Check this link and see for yourself. The old hourse that needs to be put down is the Clinton campaign.

  6. May 11, 2008 at 3:16 pm

    Sheesh, what are you Clinton supporters so angry about? I’ve repeatedly called for civility toward both candidates on this blog, but I’m beginning to think a lot of Clinton fans just aren’t capable of it!

    And where were you yesterday when Republicans were here trashing Hillary? Or do you only trash your fellow Democrats?

  7. May 11, 2008 at 3:18 pm

    yeah that probably wasn’t the best Borowitz, this from yesterday is a little better:

    Shiites ruin McCain’s Sunni disposition
    By Andy Borowitz

    In a major speech on the war in Iraq today, presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain said that the Iraqis have split into two factions, Shiites and Sunnis, with a sinister goal in mind.

    “My friends, the Iraqis have divided themselves into these two groups for one reason and one reason only,” McCain told an audience in a retirement village in Scottsdale, Ariz. “They are trying to confuse me.”

    McCain said that while the two groups of Iraqis are “well-nigh impossible” to tell apart, he vowed to commit American troops to Iraq “for as long as it takes for me to figure out just what the difference between Sunnis and Shiites is.”

    “If it takes 100 years, 1,000 years, or a billion zillion years, we will stay there until I can tell Sunnis and Shiites apart,” the Arizona senator said…

  8. May 11, 2008 at 3:24 pm

    From This Week in Political Cartoons

  9. May 11, 2008 at 3:46 pm


    Sorry, but I usually don’t read & laugh at Borowitz’s warped “humor”. And no, I don’t think a less than 1% difference in the popular vote (with ALL VOTES from all the states) counted with several more states left to vote means that Hillary has to quit. Just let the voters decide… They have more of a right to choose our nominee than Beltway media elite gasbags like Timmeh Russert.

    And btw, at least Hillary remembers that there are 50 states in the US.

    Find that funny?

  10. May 11, 2008 at 4:17 pm

    Well actually, I think Hillary is counting on Puerto Rico to put her over the top 🙂 . That’s a state, right?

    At any rate Andrew, the math doesn’t add up for a Clinton nomination. From Newsweek: Why Michigan and Florida won’t matter in the end

    …it’s understandable if the Obama campaign doesn’t seem particularly eager to dole out Florida and Michigan’s 300 pledged delegates in accordance with each state’s illegitimate popular vote–after all, Clinton would be gaining far more delegates than she deserves (and enough, her campaign seems to think, to keep her candidacy alive). But a little logic–and back-of-the-envelope math–shows that Obama has nothing to lose by giving Clinton what she wants. Here goes. In Florida, the former First Lady “won” 105 delegates to Obama’s 67, while in Michigan Clinton “won” 73 to uncommitted’s 55. For the sake of argument, let’s award all those uncommitted votes to Obama. That brings his two-state total to 122; Clinton gains 178. Has she caught up in the current pledged-delegate count? Nope. Obama led 1589 to 1424 before, according to RealClear Politics; he now leads 1711 to 1602. What’s more, it’s impossible for Clinton to close the gap by June 3–even with Florida and Michigan in her column. Assuming she wins 60 percent of the remaining primary delegates–a very generous assumption, considering that Obama is heavily favored in Oregon, South Dakota and Montana–she’d still trail by 55 (2059-2004) at the end of regulation.In other words, close but no cigar. With Florida and Michigan in the mix–and the new magic number set at 2,209–both candidates would still need some superdelegate support to cross the finish line. In this case, Obama would wind up 150 short of a majority, a setback from the 88 he’d need if the rogue states weren’t included in the count. But the news for Clinton is worse. Believe it or not, in my Florida/Michigan/60-40 fantasy scenario she’d wake up on June 4 further from the nomination than if we’d just given her 60 percent of the remaining primary delegates and left Florida and Michigan alone. That is, 205 superdels short vs. 199.

    So keep on dreamin Andrew. In this case, I don’t think this dream will come true.

  11. May 11, 2008 at 4:31 pm

    Come on Chris, knock it off, let’s take our cues from BO, it’s time for us Obama supporters to be “magnanimous.” We want everybody to be getting along and happy with the outcome. We don’t need to be hammering at them and rubbing it in. Time to focus on McSame. Folks out there still think he’s a straight-talkin’ maverick!!

  12. Paul Lucas
    May 11, 2008 at 4:37 pm

    “And where were you yesterday when Republicans were here trashing Hillary? Or do you only trash your fellow Democrats?”

    Very poignant question Gila.

  13. May 11, 2008 at 4:41 pm

    Hey, at least he didn’t post the SNL opening skit. Ouch.

  14. May 11, 2008 at 5:28 pm


    You’re still ignoring one inconvenient truth that Newsweek probably didn’t want to include in its slanted piece… But still somehow did:

    BOTH candidates still need Superdelegate support to get to 2209.

    Go ahead and claim “victory” all you’d like, but neither candidate has 2209 delegates yet. There are still states and territories that are due to vote, and the popular vote count is close enough that the remaining contests can swing the nomination one way or another depending on whether the Superdelegates pay attention to the popular vote (and I don’t see why they wouldn’t). Go ahead and mock me for it, but I’m sticking with Hillary as long as she stays fighting.


    Thanks for trying to play nice in here… If only more of your fellow Obama supporters could do a better job of representing the “hope” and “change” that I have yet to see… Sigh…

  15. May 11, 2008 at 5:41 pm


    It is true that both candidates need the superdelegates to get the nomination.

    With superdelegates breaking for Obama at an average rate of 10:1 since last Tuesday, I am trying to figure out how Hillary can possibly turn things around. The only state Hillary is leading in is West Virginia. That will not turn the popular vote in her direction enough to give her the popluar vote lead.

    Come June 3rd, Obama will be leading in popular vote, pledged delegates, and superdelegates. I wonder what the Hillary spin (argument) will be then?

  16. May 11, 2008 at 5:55 pm


    Try again. She’s leading in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico (not a state, but a territory that has a primary on June 3). She has a fighting chance in Oregon, Montana, & South Dakota. On the 31st, the DNC Rules Committee will be meeting to discuss Florida & Michigan (and btw, there’s no rule against people voting).

    Frankly, I see no reason for Hillary Clinton to quit before the game’s over. I’m reminded of an opinion article I read in The Washington Post from Ellen Malcolm of EMILY’s List.

    When she & Hillary were kids, they weren’t allowed to do such “manly” things as play a full game of basketball. Fortunately over the years, many glass ceilings holding women down have been broken… So why are so many men afraid of seeing one woman compete to break through the highest glass ceiling left? What’s so wrong about letting the voters decide all the way to the end?

  17. May 11, 2008 at 6:10 pm

    Which voters exactly are you talking about? I realize this thing is going all the way to June 3rd. But absent Hillary winning by more than 60% in EVERY SINGLE CONTEST, she will not overcome Obama’s lead in popular vote.

    But I remind you of your earlier comment…

    BOTH candidates still need Superdelegate support to get to 2209.

    So are you suggesting that the superdelegates overturn the pledged delegate lead, which is based upon popular vote?

    Mak up your mind Andrew. Is it delegates or popular vote that wins the nomination. The answer is delegates. The reason for this is that not all states hold primaries. Some states hold caucuses to select there delegates. Ther is no “official” popular vote in those states.

    So if the magic number is 2209 DELEGATE VOTES, and the superdelegates need to weigh in; are you suggesting that they side with the candidate who has less pledged delegates? Yeah, that’s democratic.

  18. May 11, 2008 at 6:25 pm


    What’s so undemocratic about choosing the popular vote winner? Remember that pledged delegates aren’t exactly chosen in a purely democratic way. Obama got more delegates in Nevada and Texas DESPITE Hillary winning the popular vote in both states. And please, don’t get me started about how caucuses are inherently undemocratic by excluding military soldiers, disabled people, the working poor, and just about everyone else who can’t attend a selected caucus at an appointed time (and not to mention how caucuses can be manipulated even more to disenfranchise those who actually bother to attend).

    So yes, if DNC Superdeleates have to choose between a pledged delegate leader and a popular vote leader… I hope they choose the popular vote leader. That would be the truly democratic thing to do that would tell rank-and-file Democrats everywhere that our votes actually count for something.

    And btw, the popular vote gap is only about 230,000K… That can easily be made up by high turnout in West Virginia and Kentucky alone. I won’t even start about how excited Puerto Ricans are about having a say in this race.

  19. May 11, 2008 at 7:06 pm

    Thanks for trying to play nice in here… If only more of your fellow Obama supporters could do a better job of representing the “hope” and “change” that I have yet to see

    That’s a pretty damn offensive thing to say, Andrew, when your candidate’s supporters just said “Borowitz is disgusting, and so is anyone who promotes this kind of filth.” and “you Obama supporters will NOT get any sympathy from ME!”

    I don’t have a single problem with someone supporting Clinton, as you know, and I’m about 95% over the incompetence and rudeness I dealt with from her campaign last month. However, as many of us know, if it wasn’t for Donnie McClurkin you’d probably still be behind Obama anyway.

    I think you’ve got a few motes in your eye. The least you can do is try to be objective about whose behavior here has been the most impolite.

  20. Dan Chmielewski
    May 11, 2008 at 8:40 pm

    If we had a winner take all approach to primaries, like Republicans do, she be ahead massively. I am not so sure Obama would carry NC in the general election. Beside IL, what safe democratc state has he won?

  21. Bladerunner
    May 11, 2008 at 8:52 pm

    Mr. Prevatt; I thought the race card blast at Clinton post was just a momentary lapse of yours. Now with this sicko post, I’m convinced that a more serious disorder has presented itself:


    Mr. Davey—Keep fighting lad. The drive to close off this nomination before the primary season is over is fueled by fear and/or the desire to win the nomination . Which is fine but Hillary has every right to fight on and you to defend that right. Her prospects appear grim but they are not hopeless. And the Democrats continue to benefit in those remaining states that have primaries with increased voter participation. But understand the Obama people want this ended as would Clinton if she was in Obama’s front runner position. That’s why the Obama people(but not Obama, interestingly) have been writing Clinton’s obituary since Iowa and have been pushing to get her to withdraw since that time. The sense of urgency for Clinton to “go out into the cold and die” increased once Obama suffered both self-inflicted and Wright-inflicted wounds but its the same old song that primary front runners always sing:”time to unify the Party.” And it’s a song you and other Clinton supporters might be singing if the shoe was on the other foot. So don’t take it so personal.

    I have to depart with you about the attacks on Clinton being sexist. For the most part, that’s no closer to the truth than the canard pushed by some of the Obama people that Clinton’s comments are racist. Borowitz’s crude attempt at humor fell flat but Mr. Davey, she is a woman and every attack on her can’t be construed as a sexist attack. Stupid is not necessarily sexist. Similarly, some would put up a white liberal guilt veil on Obama to suggest a charge that he is elitist is somehow mysterious code for an uppity negro or that describing the fact that Obama is having trouble getting the votes of working class white voters is somehow racist. Please!

    People, its a campaign. there will be attacks. You have an African American and a woman. If they want to compete in the big leagues they have to be tough and the defense to attacks or sometimes just plain recitation of facts should not be to play the race or gender card. That kind of defense might work with some liberal Democrats but the vast majority of American voters will listen to it and spit. Quit whining and deal with the problem.

    Ms. Jones–It was admirable of you, an Obama supporter, to come to the aide of Senator Clinton’s honor and dehuevo the Captain. But seriously, his comment was so inane your clever response said it all. I suspect the Clinton people did not feel the need to pile on. A silly comment, especially one that was belittled so well, is much easier to pass on than an actual post that features low grade humor at the expense of one of the candidates. And the second post in two days by Mr. Prevatt that attacked Senator Clinton. Add to those empirical differences the fact that Clinton’s precarious electoral position doesn’t leave in her supporters the confidence of a winner to ignore slights and take the high road(Exhibit A: Mr. Nelsen).

    Finally, Mr. Nelsen: You get the Chairman Dean’s Democratic Volunteer Who Stays on Message Award. You understand well that posts like this one of Mr. Prevatt’s only exacerbate the process of bringing the two campaigns and their supporters together.

  22. May 11, 2008 at 10:01 pm

    If we had a Winner Take All system in Democratic primaries, I have no doubt that all campaigns would have had vastly different strategies. My guess is that they would have only spent resources in STATES they were close to winning, rather than Congressional Districts where they were close to squeezing out another delegate.
    So to assume the results would be the same under different rules is simply false.
    And I don’t understand your pointing to safe Democratic states. Are you trying to change the ground rules once more?
    How about we only let the votes of older white women vote – then she wins overwhelmingly.

  23. May 11, 2008 at 10:06 pm

    If we had a Winner Take All system in Dem primaries…

    If frogs had turbo-jets….

    I better stop, don’t want to lose my latest award.

  24. May 12, 2008 at 1:47 am

    With all due respect Bladerunner,

    When I was crowing about how John Edwards should stay in the race everyone jumped on my head. I never said that Hillary should drop out. My point is that she has no hope of getting the nomination. Just like John Edwards ultimately had no hope after South Carolina. You know damn well that Borowitz commentary was not filth, it was satire. Hillary’s comments about race were indeed probably not meant as racist. They were simply STUPID and DESPERATE. They actually do not even make any sense given her lead in the West Virginia and Kentucky polls where such “code” could have an effect.


    We do not have a winner take all system for delegate allocation in the Democratic Primary. We have proportional representation which is far more democratic. Your suggestion that if we had such a system Hillary would be the nominee is about as reasonable as suggesting that the votes of African-Americans should be automatically reduced by 40% because the Constitution originally said that each negro was to be counted as 3/5 of a white.


    There is no objective way to count “popular vote” when the system for selection of the nominee is based upon a proportional allocation of delegates based upon a combination of caucus and primary contests. The nominee of the Democratic Party is selected based upon delegates.

    The leader among pledged delegates is Senator Obama. The leader among superdelegates is Senator Obama. Even if Senator Clinton were to win in Kentucky and West Virginia by 70%, the remaining contests would not yield enough delegates for Senator Clinton to overtake Senator Obama’s lead. Even if she were to eek out victories in all remaining contests at 51-53% which is unlikely, the math simply does not add up.

    So Run Hillary Run! On June 4th or 5th, do the math, and if you are behind significantly in the pledged delegate and superdelegate vote, then sheshould step gracefully aside.

    Andrew my sweet, ckick your ruby red slppers together three times whand repreat after me, There’s no placel like Home,

  25. May 12, 2008 at 8:40 am


    I’m sorry that you all had to witness my head exploding here. I was deeply offended by the crude “humor” comparing Hillary Clinton to an old horse in need of euthanasia, and I didn’t know quite how to respond at first. I guess my anger later on in this thread didn’t help matters here. Sorry.

    I just wish we all didn’t have to argue over idiotic “humor” and who’s up and who’s down and what the pundits say about the candidates. I really prefer to talk about the substantive issues that matter, and it’s sad to see what really matters get drowned out by stupid media chatter about “the horserace”.

  26. Bladerunner
    May 12, 2008 at 4:22 pm

    Mr. Prevatt: I never jumped on your head about Edwards. In fact I defended your decision to cast your vote for him even after he suspended his campaign.

    You say your point is that Clinton has no hope to win the nomination. People respectfully disagree. Including me. I won’t go thru the hypotheticals but its possible. I noted its not probable(except for those Clinton supporters who are versed in Voodoo Delgate Counting,)but possible. More to the point, Obama has failed to nail down a critical element of the vote necessary to win a general election. It must be tough to get punked like he is going to tomorrow in West Virginia and probably in Kentucky. He needs some help on the number 2 spot if he does get the nomination. And as for code, please. The elitist label has been lodged against 3 of the last 4 Democratic presidential nominees with blistering effect–Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. Last time I looked, those three were white guys. Elitist is an equal opportunity albatross my friend.

    As for your “satire” I never said it was filth but it was crude and I’ll stand by my observation it was a sicko post. I know you like to be satirical but you need to remember something. When satire works, its hilarious. When it doesn’t, and it didn’t here, its crude, stupid and beneath someone as smart as you. You’re a great blogger but this wasn’t your finest moment.

    Clinton’s comments, on the other hand, were perhaps not well put together but accurate. Maybe she should have included that she is not doing well among hard working black Americans so it didn’t offend your sensibilities. I’d worry more about your candidate’s difficulty in knowing how many states there are in the U.S.A.

    Finally, as to your suggestion that she should step aside June 4th or 5th, I’m reminded of a comment by an influential blogger a few months ago:

    “Given the lack of time to fully vet Obama in comparison to Clinton I see no problem in tying up enough delegates to hold over the selection of our nominee until the Convention at the end of August. ”

    Chris Prevatt

  27. SI
    May 12, 2008 at 4:31 pm

    You are giving Prevatt way too much Credit. He has become a major Janny and has been infatuated with her ever since. Case in point he said nothing about janets lawsuit that was filed on her by jimmy camp. Prevatt has lost his credibilty as a blogger in recent months. Im not sure what happened to him aside from making some sort of deal with the jannys.

  28. Dan Chmielewski
    May 12, 2008 at 5:46 pm

    I would love for the Obama people to explain to me how they think he will win states like Alabama, Mississippi, Louisana, Geogia, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana et al in the general election. He will likely win in California, NY and the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, but PA, NJ, Ohio, and PA are all in play. Sure, Obama is handling every jab and uppercut Hillary can throw at him, but it looks like he’s trying to win a bout on points and not a knock out. Hillary is probably going to cursh him in West VA and Kentucky. Oregon is a toss up.

    Democrats fall in Love with candidates; Republicans fall in line. And Obama now has a 3.5 super delegrate lead, yet the Obama people are treating this like the Lakers are up by 30 with two minutes to play. This is a close race. And its still not over no matter what the MSM says.

  29. May 12, 2008 at 6:00 pm


    I had faith that Edwards would know when to drop out and he did. AND he did it with amazing grace and dignity. Not only did he do it for the right reasons, he brought the cameras of the MSM back to New Orleans, which has been sorely neglected by our media, it’s still struggling to rebuild, which is a shame.

    If anyone saw the interviews with Edwards this weekend, they would see he was saying that he hopes Clinton does the same, that she sees when the best time arrives and grabs it. Right now, she has no reason to drop out, she will handily win West Virginia and Kentucky, they just aren’t big enough states to make any difference.

    Dan – Just because someone wins a primary in a State does not mean they will win in the general election, it’s a poor argument to use against Obama. He has advantages in other States that are teetering right now.

  30. Dan Chmielewski
    May 12, 2008 at 6:13 pm

    Heather — what states would those be? The only big Blue state he’s won was Illinois. I don’t see any of the Red States he’s won flipping our way because he’s the candidate. The LA Times poll from last Sunday showed Hillary was a much stronger candidate against McCain than Obama. Obama has won more states than she has but he’s won a lot of states he won’t win in the general election.

  31. May 12, 2008 at 6:27 pm

    Hillary has also won many states that she won’t win in November.
    And NO Dem will win in most of the states you listed for a very long time.
    So what’s your point?

  32. Dan Chmielewski
    May 12, 2008 at 7:38 pm

    Well, Montana, Indiana and Ohio have more or less gone blue since the 2006 election. And the 2008 election will be a bloodbath for congressional Republicans. Just keep touting that war as the economy continues to go south and gas keeps going up.

  33. Dan Chmielewski
    May 13, 2008 at 10:52 am

    Chris —
    we have a winner take all system in the general election.

Comments are closed.