As an Obama supporter, I try my very best to be objective. First, I do not excuse my candidate no matter the situation. For instance, some of the mailers sent out have been too negative and I do not condone their use. The Annie Oakley reference didn't sit well with me either. But overall, I'm satisfied with Senator Obama and his policies. He's the Junior Senator from my home state, so, I can even say that I have been satisfied with him as a public figure for quite some time.
Now onto this whole issue of who will win this nomination contest. Senator Obama should fight for it as though it's not yet his, because it isn't, but officially, the thing is over. The Clinton campaign likens this to a football game with 2 minutes to go, they say that we should let it play out. What they fail to mention is that they're down 4 touchdowns. No penalty, no safety, no fumble, or onside kick will give them a chance at the lead.
Roger Simon of Politico has an excellent article that looks at Senator Clinton's path to the nomination, or the lack there of. In discussing Senator Clinton's strategy of convincing the superdelegates that her popular vote lead legitimizes her nomination in light of losing the pledged delegate race, Mr. Simon points out:
...the people she most needs to convince that this fantasy is true are the people least likely to believe it.
Now, examine this: of the elected superdelegates who have publicly aligned themselves with a candidate thus far, and these are governors, representatives, and senators, Senator Obama leads Senator Clinton 109 to 101. Let us take a moment to examine this. This ex first-lady, wife of the last Democratic president, a popular one at that too, a 2-term Senator from New York, well-spoken, intelligent, withstood the VRWC attack, is not leading the in the vote of the elected superdelegates? Is it just me or is something severely wrong with this picture?
In an attempt to show that a superdelegate-enabled win isn't necessarily undemocratic, the Clinton campaign has made the argument that most of the superdelegates happen to be democratically elected themselves, so this isn't really that bad if they use their better judgment as the people trust them to do while they legislate. Well, there goes that argument for anyone paying attention.
Last but not least, there's Michigan, and there's Florida. Back to Roger Simon...
OK, but let's say you got the DNC members really, really drunk (not an outrageous scenario) and convinced them that the popular vote ought to count. Could you then convince them that counting Michigan and Florida makes sense?No way. For starters, the DNC is the group that declared Michigan and Florida rogue states in the first place. Do you really think the DNC is now likely to accept the popular vote count from those states?
No, they won't. There will be some sort of compromise for the good of the party, but nothing so dramatic that it will change the face of the race. I'm all for seating FL and MI, but you have to believe that though the DNC realizes what kind of mess this has been, they also have to ensure that any resolution that is reached does not undermine the DNC's ability to reign in states in the future.
In conclusion, I ask myself, if Senator Clinton knows that she has no path to the nomination, why does she continue? Honestly, I'm stuck between "I don't know" and "she hopes Obama falls apart". And there's that devious 2012 strategy being tossed around as an explanation. I guess no one really knows. I'm sure Howard Wolfson does, but there's no point in asking him since all you get from the fellow is a response peppered with deflection.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 48 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
