home

Abandoning The Clinton Uncertainty/Revote Theory

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections
Posted on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:12:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

In my earlier discussion about why Hillary Clinton should fight for revotes in Michigan and Florida, I noted that most bloggers, including Kos, had adopted Mark Schmitt's view that Clinton did not want revotes in Michigan and Florida - she wanted uncertainty. Now that it appears that there will be no revotes, Kos adopts my view of this Clinton uncertainty/revote issue:

[T]he news out of Michigan and Florida may have lifted enough of that uncertainty to begin shifting that media narrative. Uber-CW-meister (and professional asshole) Mark Halperin, formerly of The Note, and now at Time, delivers the cruel blow:

Monday's decision by Florida Democrats to abandon their efforts to hold a new primary, in order to get their delegation seated at the national party's August convention, is another blow to Hillary Clinton's attempt to close the small but near-impregnable delegate gap on her rival, Barack Obama. And she's having little more luck in Michigan [...]

Clinton's only hope now in Florida would be for the national party's credentials committee, which meets later this year, to change course and count some or all of the delegates elected in January. But most Democrats - and even some of Clinton's supporters - believe this is unlikely [...]

The Obama campaign has cleverly slow-walked the debate over the Florida and Michigan primaries, knowing that the clock on their side. With Florida essentially giving up, and Michigan struggling to find a solution, Clinton's time - and options - are fast running out.

Before, no one agreed with me on this. I have a feeling more pro-Obama blogs will see the light as Markos has. Funny how that works.

< Quinnipiac Poll: Hillary Gains in Pennsylvania | Updated Delegate Math: What Each Needs >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Abandoning The Clinton Uncertainty/Revote Theory | 89 comments (89 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Moulitsas has not been very consistent (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:17:22 PM EST
    I know you're friends with him, so I won't get nasty, but he certainly has seemed to be coming down firmly on whichever side of the argument favors Obama lately. He stretched the bounds of credibility by a wide margin when he tried to justify splitting the Michigan and Florida delegates down the middle in order to provide representation to both states. I think that until he regains his balance I'm going to assume that anything he says is of questionable value.

    The only rationale that I saw Kos give (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:22:17 PM EST
    for splitting the Michigan and Florida ballots down the middle was that it would be "cheaper."

    He doesn't even make an effort anymore, really.

    Parent

    He went further than that (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:38:26 PM EST
    As best I could tell, he was arguing that by disenfranchising Florida and Michigan voter's because their states moved their elections forward, the Democratic Party was showing New Hampshire and Iowa they they wouldn't be able to control the electoral process by moving their elections forward in the future. I don't really know what this has to do with not allowing re-votes or splitting the vote 50/50.

    Parent
    What price liberty? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:42:28 PM EST
    Yeah, a number of Obama surrogates were repeating the "cheaper" rationale too. Including Bill "I'm More Liberal Than Al Gore" Bradley.

    Parent
    Arrgh. Bill Bradley's attacks on Gore (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:46:12 PM EST
    in the primaries remind me of something.  I just can't put my finger on it.

    Parent
    It's the 48 state strategy (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:19:13 PM EST
    You didn't get the memo?

    Parent
    But no. More from the big man: (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:28:54 PM EST
    But there's also the new generation of super delegates who are champions of the 50-state strategy that Clinton and her campaign have so mercilessly mocked in deed this year.


    Parent
    I read that as projecting on his part. (none / 0) (#76)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:48:05 PM EST
    He believes in the 50 state strategy, but Obama's use of it is not proof of Obama's belief in it.

    Obama had to do it because he was in a contest against such a well known and established opponent.  He had enough funding to do it and was smart enough to use it so he did.  But employing a particular strategy does not necessarily mean that people are "believers" - especially in politics.  

    Parent

    my conclusion is its too early to say (none / 0) (#84)
    by thereyougo on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:41:45 PM EST
    one way or the other whether the 50 state stregy works.

    While I support the 50 state strategy, no one thought it would turn out this way, certainly not the Clinton machine.

    So I see nothing wrong with the super delegates choosing the nominee. Clinton has the advantage,and the Obama camp should accept it because they knew the math, as did Hillary and she's not boohooing about the unseated delegates in MI and Fla.

    But we don't know whats really going on behind closed doors.

    Just because Obama was ahead,its reasonable to bring up the big state narrative.

    Until Obama wins at least one  states' popular votes,Hillary has the advantage at least politically.

    Parent

    well... (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by Turkana on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:27:50 PM EST
    his fair and balanced solution is to just split the delegates between clinton and obama, anyway. funny how that works, too. and he thanks florida and michigan for agreeing to be irrelevant. funny how that works, too.

    I think it's extremely generous (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:17:09 PM EST
    Kos congratulated MI and FL for, in essence, "taking one for the team." I'm sure that will be a real Democratic selling point in November, too.

    Parent
    it just amused me (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Turkana on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:20:38 PM EST
    because every time clinton- understandably, it's politics!- tried to downplay the significance of states she lost, kos and his minions would spin that into her having said those states were irrelevant. now, he's just happy as can be to disenfranchise the voters of florida and michigan, not to mention those of us who have yet to vote.

    Parent
    I want revotes so (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by TheRefugee on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:25:30 PM EST
    Kos and Brazille's and the others in the "split the delegates or just forget em" crowd can have their  comments plastered all over...let the voters decide who wanted them included v those who were fine with bureaucratic disenfranchisement but full of platitudes, "you brought it on yourself, the DNC warned you", "thanks...you took one for the team..showed all of those other uppity states not to mess with the DNC, NH or IA."

    Parent
    The arrogance of this position is (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:54:53 PM EST
    so offensive.  

    I could do without "clever," if what it means is throwing away the votes of almost 3 million voters as a strategic move, and I think it is stunningly short-sighted and arrogant to think that it won't matter in November, or reverberate throughout the party for a long time to come.

    I just don't understand these people who think the people's right to vote and be counted is a disposable commodity.  I expect that from Republicans who have proven that they will use all means available to manipulate the outcome;  everyone who was outraged at the Bush administration's attempts to keep people out of the voting booth should not be applauding even rhetorical efforts by Democrats to do the same.

    Really just don't get that.

    Parent

    The explanation is simple: (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Jim J on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:17:10 PM EST
    Kos is still a Republican at heart.

    Parent
    I've known many people who were "clever" (none / 0) (#95)
    by splashy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:01:39 AM EST
    Or so they thought, when in reality they were just conpeople out to get others to do their work/cover for them. They were all scammers out for themselves, and themselves only.

    Parent
    Lol (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by ineedalife on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:18:18 PM EST
    Obama could save himself alot of effort and just remove his name from all the remaining primaries. Kos would lead the charge to award 50% of their delegates for Obama anyways.  

    Parent
    I was hoping you or andgarden would (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:32:15 PM EST
    explain this post (BTD's) in language I could understand!

    Count me confused too oculus. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Teresa on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:37:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Is it just me (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:42:26 PM EST
    or does it seem that it doesn't matter who gets the nom at this point... both candidates will be represented as having achieved the nomination through less than nobel means.

    No, it is not just you (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:53:59 PM EST
    I'm wondering about that too.  We know that Obama supporters will view a process that seats FLA and MI in accordance with the January 29 vote as illegitimate because it breaks the rules -- even though the rules contemplate the DNC reversing itself, not to mention certification by the credentials committee. They will also view a Clinton nomination as illegitimate if it is achieved by superdelegates voting for her despite Obama's lead in elected delegates. They will view it that way even if she comes in with a lead in popular votes.

    Clinton supporters will view a process that effectively disenfranchises the FLA and MI voters -- and this includes the stupid 50-50 proposal -- to be illegitimate. It doesn't matter whether Clinton would have retaken the delegate lead if you seated FLA and MI, or whether she would have retaken the popular vote lead if counted the FLA and MI popular votes. They will view this disenfranchisement as the result of Obama's tactical resistance, made all the more egregious by the fact that Obama didn't need to disenfranchise the voters in order to keep the delegate lead.

    I have my own views. But I am just one voter. But if a significant number of people on the losing candidate's side feels that the nomination was tainted, we are giving McSame an advantage in the fall.  He still has to overcome the inherent contradictions in his own candidacy -- maverick McSame, Commander in Chief McSame continuing the policies of Commander Codpiece, against tax cuts before he was for them, etc.  So all is not lost.  Yet.

    Parent

    Also, Without Fully Seated MI And FL, (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:01:02 PM EST
    the Dems are giving McCain a two state handicap before the race even begins.

    Parent
    Too long (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:11:57 PM EST
    This has gone on so long, that I don't think it matters too much how they are handled.  At some point all of it just becomes too little too late.  It is more of a challenge to keep attention on the positive energy of the campaigns.  I want to be a fly on the wall when the DNC meets after this is all over to see how they can avoid future cluster#$%@@.

    Parent
    I doubt this (none / 0) (#87)
    by thereyougo on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:47:49 PM EST
    People vote their interest and the don't want more of the GWB policies, despite what everyone says here about primary votes.

    I think everyone will come together with a common goal, for CHANGE in either Obama or Hillary.

    Parent

    I also view a caucus-based process... (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:27:44 PM EST
    ... as illegitimate.

    The discrepancy between the TX caucus results and the secret ballot primary votes proves that the caucuses have a real democratic deficit.

    And even though its anecdotal, my own experience agrees with it. My caucus, which lasted 4 hours and was held in a high school gym on the bleachers, clearly disenfranchised those who had to work, the elderly, the disabled, the sick, the poor, those with child care issues, and those without cars. And then we get to the guy who ran the thing being grossly biased in favor of Obama, and all the electioneering that took place in the lines.

    The secret ballot concept was invented and put in place for a reason. Any result achieved using it has a prima facie case for being greater legitimacy.

    Yeah, I know. The Rulez. The Rulez that have rules for changing the rules.

    Parent

    No offense (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:44:42 PM EST
    but considering what's going on over there lately, I would be a little worried if Kos agreed with me...

    :-)

    The first sentence of the last graf... (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by rghojai on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:51:48 PM EST
    ...says a lot.

    "The Obama campaign has cleverly slow-walked the debate over the Florida and Michigan primaries, knowing that the clock [is] on their side."

    That feels like its a mighty long way from hope, unity, a fresh approach, etc. Yah, he's a politician, but there are shades of gray/degrees in that realm. There's a sense that the more seen and said, he comes across as more and more of a politician.

    Sorta ties into what comes across as BO and his campaign doing things, repudiating those who do them... saying people who are considering voting for someone else shouldn't be bamboozled.

    Wasn't it just yesterday Kos was (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:55:13 PM EST
    criticizing Clinton campaign for not following the 50-state strategy?

    Parent
    Yes, and in January he said we'd seat both (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by Teresa on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:00:33 PM EST
    delegations because we'd be stupid to throw away MI and FL. Times have changed oculus.

    Parent
    To support Obama, one must be (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:03:06 PM EST
    flexible.

    Parent
    or willing to go with the majority (none / 0) (#41)
    by cy street on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:10:13 PM EST
    of states, pledged delegates and popular vote.  either works actually.

    Parent
    ha! What a tactful and funny way to put it. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Teresa on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:10:25 PM EST
    You're right, of course.

    Parent
    48 is the new 50 (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by TheRefugee on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:26:34 PM EST
    you didn't get the dKos talk pts for 3/18/08?  Huh.

    Parent
    he couldn't come right out and say (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by TheRefugee on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:33:11 PM EST
    the "new politician" who hates establishment politics is greasing the wheels of ambiguity concerning revotes in MI and FL like a five term Senator---he's for it, he's against it, he's for it with caveats, he's against it unless..., he'll sign off on any plan the DNC approves, he won't accept a mail in vote because they are unreliable (but why do you support mail in voting in the Senate Mr. Obama?).  Yep, kos couldn't just come out and say "my guy is as polished as James Baker and GHWB when it comes to playing politics with 'the fundamental right to vote.'"

    Parent
    Ah! Smell the new kinda politics everyone! (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by OxyCon on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:04:44 PM EST
    The Obama campaign has cleverly slow-walked the debate over the Florida and Michigan primaries, knowing that the clock on their side. - Kos

    Chris Dodd (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by mm on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:07:30 PM EST
    I heard Chris Dodd today explain the strategy was to just string it along until May when they feel Obama will have it locked up and then Obama will magnanimously allow FL and MI delegates to be seated as is.  They actually think this will appease everyone.  The cynical contempt for Clinton supporters expressed in that strategy is astounding. I'm amazed how cocky they are that they're now publicly expressing it.

    It's already too late for me.

    Parent

    so he backtracked? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by TheRefugee on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:17:12 PM EST
    Wasn't he saying that FL and MI did it to themselves and therefore didn't deserve to have their delegates seated?

    Markos see the light (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Cayey on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:23:09 PM EST
    Running the clock on FL and MI seems to favor Clinton at this time. Obama is been attacked by the right and needs to close the deal now. Maybe Kos knows that more attacks are comming.  

    PA is looking good for Clinton and  she must keep campaigning there to widen her margin of victory.  If Obama becomes damage goods and Hillary gets the momentum, FL/MI  become the bargaining chips to get her the nomination.

    "Cleverly slow-walking" somehow does not (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:55:56 PM EST
    seem imbued with the urgency and energy of "crashing the gate."  

    It's the "Chicago Way" again, all the way.  And a country run the "Chicago Way" would be one with a corrupted political system to make the current situation in the Dem party look like a garden party.

    Denver will decidedly not look like a garden party.    Nothing can save the convention now, if this FL/MI mess is not clarified fast.  

    And then comes the GE, which may rival '72 in Dem debacle terms.  Obama would win more than his own state, the "Chicago Way," but maybe not many more states if the convention is in chaos again.

    Stupid, stupid, stupid.  This one ought to have been a fast walk to the White House for the Dems.   Dean and Donna "Watch Me Walk Out" Brazile need to go now for any hope for the White House, despite Obama's increasing gaffes.  But they won't.

    Clinton needs 56% of remaining delegates (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:12:57 PM EST
    But Obama needs 56%.  This according to Chris Bower's latest delegate math at OpenLeft. (I don't always agree with his opinions, but Chris does great delegate math).

    I was tending to disagree with you about the convention until I read that.  This thing is closer than I thought it was. I guess I've been listening to The Young Turks too much.


    Parent

    Yes, the delegate-count confusion (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:03:21 PM EST
    has been one of the games played.  I have had to find my own sources rather than rely on others with their own agendas.  Fyi, see also realclearpolitics.com for popular vote totals, tallied without FL and MI -- and with FL and MI for a difference of only a tiny fraction of a percent between the two Dem candidates.  

    It's a cliff-hanger, yet too many bloggers are taking advantage of their readers by trying to push one of the candidates off the cliff too soon -- and to the detriment of the party, the half of the voters who will be needed by any nominee.

    Parent

    Correction: Obama needs 53.9% (none / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:13:55 PM EST
    I mistyped above.  Sorry for the error.

    Parent
    That's the thing about the (none / 0) (#81)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:14:14 PM EST
    Obama camp's lead - they keep reminding me of Bush claiming that he had a "mandate" because of his two point victory in the 2004 popular vote.  They're acting like they've got a Reagan landslide, but they don't.  If they did, they would have achieved the magic number of delegates by now, but they haven't.

    Its just typical politics - nothing new or changey about their tactic of calling game over even when it isn't.

    Parent

    Had Bill Clinton uttered "cleverly (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:08:25 PM EST
    slow-walking," would this be considered a perjorative remark?

    Parent
    Youbetcha. But an Obama surrogate (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:12:25 PM EST
    gets to say it without question.  See how well the discourse on race is going?  And all it took was a speech.  Not an MLK speech, though.  He was so, y'know, not post-racial in those excessive '60s.

    Parent
    Sometimes I think younger (than us) (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:16:10 PM EST
    people as to race relations are like younger women are as to feminist movement.  No memory, so no credit.

    Parent
    It's just the same logic ... (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:11:49 PM EST
    as Obama used in his speech today, we're hypocrites but the only way to fix the greater hypocrisy is to elect a hypocrite (Obama) president.

    There may be reasonable, pragmatic reasons for supporting Obama ... this isn't one of them.

    And neither Obama's faux lofty speeches, or Kos' tortured Republican style logic, will convince me that I'm looking at anything more than a shell game.

    It's impossible to talk about (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:18:23 PM EST
    Why they see such "lights" when they see such "lights" without calling such friends ugly names.

    Aside from the obvious point that such posts walk us right up to the edge of speaking our minds about such bloggers and then pull us back, the DNC is itself on a precipice.

    The precipice of rendering the first black man nominated to be president illegitimate.

    Again, we must also include the The Roolz in Obama's long list of ardent supporters.

    The democratic party (none / 0) (#3)
    by talkingpoint on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:20:54 PM EST
     may be noticing that Obama is not as eletable as previously thought to be. Could it be that they are planning to seat the deleates or give Hillary half of what she would of received from each state? There is more to this. Hillary have tremendous support in Florida and Michigan and all of a sudden since the Obama controversy they don't want a revote. Something is going on here.

    Perhaps they hope to go into the (none / 0) (#5)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:23:54 PM EST
    convention with a majority of the "popular" vote (if any fair representation of that exists with so many votes taking place in caucuses).

    Parent
    I confess I don't understand what is going on (none / 0) (#7)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:27:42 PM EST
    but I hope something is.  

    I had hoped for a revote.  I think the best result to be hoped for now is something like seating he delegates based on the vote, but cutting the delegation in half (as should have been done under DNC rules to begin with).  This gives everyone something.  MI and FL are punished, the voters still have a voice, albiet a diminished one, and the Republicans have no talking point in the GE since its what they did.

    Parent

    It doens't matter. Obama will not benefit. (none / 0) (#6)
    by goldberry on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:24:31 PM EST
    You cannot write off millions of voters in two swing states and by extension millions of voters in the other Big D electoral college states without penalty.  It won't matter how many delegates Obama will end up with.  We count, and we count more than all the Republican states he has won combined.  He will not win the nomination this way.  

    He can (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:30:59 PM EST
    It just won't be regarded legitimate by folks who will continue to believe that he could not have won without certain events being set into motion.


    Parent
    Agree. (none / 0) (#19)
    by 0 politico on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:39:02 PM EST
    Have the DNC leaders been ignoring the tea leaves suggesting massive voter disenfranchising if this is left unresolved before the convention?  Are they hoping the damage will be limited if they resolve this, one way or another, at the convention?  I have to wonder.  The longer this hangs up in the air, the more time the voters have to simmer over not being counted.  If they let it go that long, they (the party) may never get those voters back.

    Then again, maybe they have figured those states will be lost and are will to take that hit in order to get BO as the candidate.

    Of course, the other question now is, did BO's speech today pull his campaign out of the fire in time?  If it did at all.

    Parent

    Dean is not looking good right now. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:47:46 PM EST
    And I like Dean.

    Parent
    Dean is being completely recessive (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:57:02 PM EST
    If this is how he would have governed as president, I'm not impressed.

    Parent
    I know and I don't think this is (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:04:49 PM EST
    consistent with his character, at least as I had viewed him.  Why not lead right now?  What does he have to lose by taking a principled position, and articulating it?

    If I'm not mistaken, he's out as DNC chairman whoever wins?  Why not try to do something?  And, if he is perceived to have screwed up, let him take the blame, for the good of the party -- rather than have the animus focused on either candidate, and the eventual nominee?

    Parent

    The DNC is a pretty screwy organization (none / 0) (#77)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:57:02 PM EST
    made up of numerous cliques.  The chairman doesn't have a lot of control over anything outside of the fundraising.  Everything else is run by committee.  The place is in a lot better shape overall than it was when McAuliffe was running it, but it still leaves a lot to be desired.

    Parent
    DNC is a disfunctional organization (none / 0) (#83)
    by RalphB on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:18:17 PM EST
    run by committees of clowns.  After this primary season, to claim otherwise is pure denial.

    Parent
    Burned by The Scream. (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:00:08 PM EST


    Parent
    Today's speech (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by sas on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:05:00 PM EST
    did very little regarding the individual voter.  

    In terms of momentum, I think she has it.  I think people are seeing the shine coming of Obama, and starting to see her as the most electable.  Polls have shifted slightly in her direction.

    If she pulls off the popular vote, and the pledged delegates are pretty close, then I don't see how the Super D's can go against her.

    Also, if Florida and Michigan don't count, especially Florida, this is going to be a real mess.

    My state (PA) will go to McCain if Obama is the nominee.  I am pretty sure Hillary would take it if it was between her and McCain.  

    On a side note I have now given 5 Republicans new voter registration forms here, as it is a closed primary, and they want to change to Democrat so they can vote for Hillary.

    Parent

    The plan remains the same (none / 0) (#50)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:24:16 PM EST
    The DNC thought all along that the prospective nominee would be obvious by the time the convention rolled around, and they could magnanimously agree to seat FL and MI without it affecting the outcome. Dean and Obama have been stalling and discouraging any revote efforts, and they have won that battle. The Obama camp has also won the public relations battle over the superdelegates, convincing many Dems that the only fair thing is for the SDs to vote for Obama if he has the most pledged delegates.  The math will be such at the convention that Obama will seat the FL and MI delegations as they currently stand and still win the nomination.  There wll be one heck of an acceptance speech, they'll all sing kumbaya and come out of the convention united.  

    But Obama still won't win Florida in November.

    I hate to say it but I just don't see a way for Clinton to win this thing without an implosion of the Obama campaign on a Spitzerian scale.

    Parent

    i came to the same conclusion after texas. (none / 0) (#55)
    by cy street on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:33:24 PM EST
    sooner or later, with or without leadership, the party is going to rise above personality and assert itself.  if there is no path to victory, why delay a known outcome?

    Parent
    I ask myself that too (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:45:36 PM EST
    I think she keeps it going just to keep the door open.  Who would have thought 2 weeks ago that Spitzer would be out?  The Clintons know better than anybody how fast things can change.

    Also, every time I think it is over, I read somebody else who convinces me it really isn't.  I'm sure if I were Clinton I'd believe that too.

    Plus, she has raised a lot of money over the last couple of months by being a fighter.  What does she tell those people - that she changed her mind and she is not in it until the end?  

    I really don't see any reason for her to quit. I don't believe the hyperbole about her tearing the party apart.  She can make a graceful, dignified exit at the convention and keep her future options open.  Maybe that is the plan. As they say, Democrats love their candidates best when they are conceding defeat gracefully. The 2nd best outcome for her would be for some of the talk at the convention to be about how great Hillary Clinton is. And she has earned it.

    Parent

    Case in point (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:06:05 PM EST
    I just read Chris Bowers' latest analysis of the delegate math over at OpenLeft.  Bottom line: Clinton needs 56% of the remaining pledged delegates to get to 2025.  Sounds tough.  But Obama needs almost that many: 53.9%.  Suddenly it seems entirely possible for Clinton to pull it off.  

    Parent
    There is no clear path to victory (none / 0) (#74)
    by RalphB on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:42:28 PM EST
    for either candidate.  Neither one will achieve the number of delegates to win, without the superdelegates.  That said, after the last week, I'd give Clinton even money to be the nominee.


    Parent
    I think you're overlooking one critical fact (none / 0) (#12)
    by digdugboy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:32:42 PM EST
    Kos has argued for some time now that the race is essentially over. Obama's delegate lead is insurmountable. Clinton is under any circumstance unlikely to regain the popular vote lead. One of the links in the Kos article you reference is to a Chuck Todd column, which points out that Clinton has not been able to get any traction with superdelegates either.

    But Kos was promoting Halperin's piece primarily as the shift in the media narrative, not his own.

    Is Kos smart enough (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by zyx on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:38:43 PM EST
    to be wondering if the Wright business means a Democratic loss in November?

    I think any serious Democrat should be wondering that right now.

    Parent

    He's a very, very smart person, as are many (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:52:16 PM EST
    of the Kossacks left over there.  It's not a question of "smart"; it's a question of being on the bus or under the bus.  And getting on board the Obama bus comes with blinders.  

    That has been evident to me since I saw Kossacks' responses on the McClurkin matter.  Now that another preacher has Obama looking bad, I expect nothing but blind devotion from these very smart people.

    Parent

    Case in point (none / 0) (#44)
    by DaveOinSF on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:14:24 PM EST
    Obama's response to the 3am ad.  Obama put out a response ad very quickly that was hailed by kos and the other Obama fans as an effective counterattack.  Said that it meant that it eliminated questions as to whether Obama was capable of replying to attacks.

    In any case, they were completely wrong.  The 3am ad was effective and Obama's response was pitiful.  Furthermore, the way the Obama camp handled Wright when it first broke was further evidence of amateur hour.

    Parent

    Well, I didn't care for that ad, and the (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:59:19 PM EST
    criticisms seemed mostly predictable to me.

    The only criticisms that I thought were ridiculous were the (sadly predictable) claims that the ad was racism.

    Really, the racism charge is wearing thin.  When Barack's supporters use it against McCain, as I am sure they will, it won't resonate.  Crying wolf.

    Parent

    Even as the bus goes over a cliff... (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:34:59 PM EST
    ...while running over grandma.  You are right - they have committed themselves way too far to turn back now. If the discussions had remained civil they would have room to adapt to circumstances and change their mind.

    What initially drew me to Kos was his practicality - didn't he repeatedly state that he was more about winning than ideology or personalities?  That's why I was surprised to see him burn his bridges.  I thought electability would always be his first consideration.

    Parent

    He has always seemed imminently (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:53:23 PM EST
    practical.  But he's also had problems choosing his words, and can be a hothead when challenged.  Maybe that explains his front-page excommunication of pro-Hillary Kossacks (effectively including those like me who never were "on strike").

    But nothing will ever justify to me his signing on to the most vile, unsubstantiated attack on a Democrat I have ever seen:  his allegation that Hillary's campaign widened Barack's nose and darkened his face to appear "more black" in a campaign ad.

    That kind of loss of credibility can't be recovered.

     

    Parent

    I don't mind hotheads (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:03:05 PM EST
    when they're right.  ::looks in BTD's direction::

    Parent
    I've been called a hothead. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:13:15 PM EST
    I try to keep it at work.

    But I always think before I write, especially when what I write reflects a considered opinion, and involves an important matter that will affect others.  Speaking rashly is a different matter altogether.

    Online, I'd tend to excuse hotheadedness in comments, less so in diaries.  BTD by his own admission has apparently has issues in the past with   some of his comments.

    Oh, and it seems to me BTD apologizes, often.  That matters a lot to me.

    Parent

    If sd. hothead agrees with you. (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:30:16 PM EST


    Parent
    Make that the most vile attack (none / 0) (#59)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:54:33 PM EST
    on a Democrat by a fellow Democrat.

    Parent
    on smartness... (none / 0) (#73)
    by dws3665 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:32:16 PM EST
    Kos may be smart, but don't be carried away. This is the same Kos, don't forget, who predicted "Obama by 15% in TX."

    Almost from the moment he announced he was supporting Obama, he has abandoned the principles he espoused in Crashing the Gate in favor of crass political expedience.

    Parent

    Doesn't look like he has considered (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:50:20 PM EST
    that possibility yet.  See his post of a series of favorable reviews of The Speech.

    Parent
    At this point (none / 0) (#15)
    by Manuel on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:35:36 PM EST
    They may as well let all the remaining states vote.  Look for MI and FL to be seated as is if it won't make a difference.  They are going to need Clinton's supporters in the fall.  The revote is a lost opportunity.

    They are going to need Clinton's supporters in the (none / 0) (#25)
    by 0 politico on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:47:20 PM EST
    That is asking for something that may not be a given.  My wife has already said that she will not vote for BO if he is the nominee (his campaign, his lack of experience, she doesn't fall for his speeches, etc.).  She may abstain, or vote McCain - BO is not an option for her.

    Due to his basically ignoring his duties and responsibilities concerning his sub-committee chairmanship (is that how he is going to treat foreign and national security affairs as POTUS?), I will have to think long and hard before I punch that box on the ballot.  

    Parent

    Off topic comments (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:43:43 PM EST
    with race-baiting allegations deleted.

    Well (none / 0) (#40)
    by DaveOinSF on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:05:38 PM EST
    With no MI/FL revote, it's probably a guarantee now that Hillary will win the popular vote, even if you give Michigan's uncommiteds to Obama.

    The Dean scream is not near as bad as (none / 0) (#85)
    by athyrio on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:42:02 PM EST
    the Wright tapes....No way that speech got beyond that...

    the issue is vulnerability (none / 0) (#89)
    by sarany on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:14:20 AM EST
    I don't have a problem with Wright's remarks per se, but with Obama's judgement and what the prospect of the replaying of the Wright clips will mean in the GE. This is not pretend indignation about a black pastor's angry language, but what this might mean in the fight to get a Dem in the WH and keep McCain OUT.

    I thought Obama's speech yesterday handled all this very adroitly, but we'll have to see how the voters feel, how it breaks down by demographics and what it means for the GE.

    IMHO, this is exactly the job of the superdelegates, by the way. They are in a position to assess how the narrative on both candidates have evolved since the early days of the primary season. They should be evaluating damage and best chances and be looking to gain Dems the WH.

    Parent

    please repost your comment (none / 0) (#91)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:49:48 AM EST
    without the first line which violates our site policy. Otherwise it will be deleted.

    Parent
    Can you imagine? (none / 0) (#86)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:44:30 PM EST
    the reaction if Hillary had given a speech on sexism to counter Ferraro's remarks??
    they would have covered (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:51:17 AM EST
    the first five minutes and then called it a campaign stump speech and cut her off. [only slight exaggeration intended]

    Parent
    I don't see it as clever at all (none / 0) (#94)
    by splashy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:51:30 AM EST
    I see it as cutting a huge number of people completely out of the nomination process. That is NOT democracy, IMHO. That is stealing and conniving to win, regardless of who is hurt in the process. No wonder we have seen what has happened in the caucuses, which also cut out a good sized number of people.

    Not a good sign of character OR judgment, especially regarding the working people. Seems more like politics as usual, favoring the more well-to-do without regard for the well being of those less well off.

    Abandoning The Clinton Uncertainty/Revote Theory | 89 comments (89 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment