Here's a posting I put up at the Mother Jones blog:
The morning after, the Clinton crew was unbowed. As Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night was being creamed by Barack Obama in North Carolina and eking out a narrow victory in Indiana, pundits throughout Cable News Land were pronouncing her dead, dead, dead. Tim Russert said the race was over. But when a reporter on the campaign's morning conference call, asked Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications director, if there had been "any discussions about not going forward," he said, "No discussions." And he seemed to mean it.
On the call, Wolfson, deputy communications director Phil Singer, and chief strategist Geoff Garin were forward-looking. They claimed to be "happy" about the 1.8-percent win in Indiana--but without sounding at all jubilant about the squeaker. As for North Carolina--where she lost by 14 points--they claimed "progress" there and pointed to the fact that she beat Obama among white voters by 24 points (as if the increasing racial polarization within the Democratic primary electorate is something to celebrate). They acknowledged that Clinton had in recent weeks loaned her campaign nearly $6.5 million--and claimed it was a sign of her commitment to moving ahead and, of course, fighting for real people. They repeated the campaign's call to seat the disputed delegations of Florida and Michigan, and they indicated they were ready to rumble in the upcoming primaries. Voters in those states, Garin said, should be given the ability "to express their voice." He added, "All we are doing is suggesting the process ought to play out."
In other words, damn the pundits, full speed ahead. It appeared that Clinton--faced with three alternatives: fighting on as if nothing has changed, dropping out, or planning a graceful exit strategy--has for the time being settled on option one.
But the voyage got a lot rockier after Indiana and North Carolina. As the cable news analysts pointed out, it is now practically a mathematical certainty that Obama will end the primaries next month with a lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote, even if the results in Florida and Michigan are included. So Clinton has run out of metrics. The days of fuzzy math are over. There will be no measure by which she will be able to argue she is the voters' choice. All the campaign is left with is an opinion: Clinton can do better than Obama against John McCain in the fall. Clinton and her lieutenants do have stats to cite, notably her performance among working-class voters (meaning, white working-class voters). She has demonstrated, Wolfson maintained on the call, "a proven ability" to win over these voters, while Obama has not. This is, he added, "the crux of the argument" that the Clinton campaign will be making to the superdelegates. And in the next primary states--West Virginia (May 13), Kentucky (May 20), Oregon (May 20)--Clinton will try to show once more that she fares better among lunch-pail Democrats.
So now Clinton, who passionately insists that democracy demands that the Florida and Michigan contest be counted and that voters in the last few states be granted the opportunity to state their preferences, is left with nothing but the most elitist of strategies: she must convince party insiders--the 300 or so not-yet-committed superdelegates--to vote against the popular will of the voters who participated in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. On the conference call, I asked Garin whether his campaign is essentially stuck with a "nullification strategy." He disputed his campaign's game plan was anything like a "nullification strategy." All delegates--pledged delegates and superdelegates--have "equal moral weight in the process," he said, and the rules of the party "anticipate there will be delegates" who will make "good faith decisions."
That is so. But for Clinton to win, these superdelegates will have to say that they know better than the voters. It is certainly permissible under Democratic Party rules. But might such an action blow apart the party? There is no way for the Clinton campaign to orchestrate this strategy politely or calmly and wrap it up quickly after the primaries conclude on June 3. After all, no superdelegate commitment is solid until he or she actually votes at the convention. Even if Clinton is able to sway enough superdelegates and win the necessary number of commitments, Obama will not fold his tent and accept this as a deal done. He would fight for those superdelegates and, if need be, fight the process. There would be a bloody battle from early June until the first ballot at the convention in late August. Nullification cannot be accomplished neatly. Clinton and her crew must realize that.
I asked Garin if he foresaw any problem if the candidate with the most pledged delegates and the most popular votes was not chosen at the convention. "When we get to June 3, we'll have a very close result," he said. "This might raise the question of how close is close." He didn't answer the question.
Right now, the Clintonites are saying they're not bailing. But in for a penny, in for a pound. The only way she can triumph is by first persuading superdelegates to vote against the wishes of primary voters and caucus-goers and by then mounting an ugly fight that will last for months until the convention--a fight that would likely create consequences that would resonate far beyond the convention.
It may be full speed ahead for Clinton and her gang, but that's only because her finger is on the button and she is considering pushing it.
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Comments
"Clinton can do better than Obama against John McCain in the fall."
That is a hypothetical unless or until she actually wins the nomination.
Hard to win against McCain if she is just a senator from NY.
Posted by: capt
| May 7, 2008 1:21 PM
The Reagan Democrats have been the deciding factor in the last ten Presidential elections. Carter got them in the wake of Watergate. Only Bill Clinton has held them since then. Obama's proven himself very weak with that segment, and last night he lost among independents.
Current trial heat in Ohio:
Hillary beats McCain 48 to 39
Obama loses to McCain 42 to 43
Florida:
Hillary beats McCain 49 to 41
Obama loses to MCain 43 to 44
The Obama vs. McCain race is going to be all-culture, all-personality, all-the-time....
You'll be lucky if you hear "universal health care" more than three times between the conventions and the November election...
If you run on nothing (fluff and feel-good symbolism), then you have nothing when you get in. Basic laws of political capital.
Posted by: Diff
| May 7, 2008 2:42 PM
This just proves I'm smarter than Tim Russert and that's no big deal.
Thanks D Corn for covering the race... they're not even rounding the second bend yet.
Posted by: Neil
| May 7, 2008 2:43 PM
And the Obama vs. McCain race is going to be razor-thin-close every step of the way...
In the Gallup tracking poll over the past three weeks, Obama runs 1 to 2 points behind McCain in national preference.
When's the Obama magic suddenly going to infect the rest of the electorage I wonder (65-75%). He's got his core cult (young, black + Volvos), plus loyal Democrats like me who would never vote Republican.... Please show me who he's going to get after that?
Posted by: Diff
| May 7, 2008 2:50 PM
According to Sludge: Hillary having trouble finding superdelegates who will meet with her
CONGRESSIONAL SOURCE: Hillary having trouble finding superdelegates who will meet with her... 'No one wants to see her today'... Developing...
I won't link to Drudge but you can go there if you like.
*****
She will get the message one way or the other.
Posted by: capt
| May 7, 2008 3:21 PM
That many people want to vote for another 100 years of war?
Posted by: David B. Benson
| May 7, 2008 5:30 PM
I heard that Sen Levin and party spokesman Dingalls are proposing a 69/59 split of the Michigan Delegates to Clinton and Obama. If you use these numbers and add in Florida, Hillary still needs to get 80% of the remaining superdelegates and 60% of the vote in West Virginia, Kentucky, Montana and South Dakota - the only state left where she has a chance to win.
Her contention is that he can't win without playing it out. There aren't enough supers to get him over the top.
Diff - look at the poll averages on realclearpolitics.com. Both dems beat McCain 47 to 44. Which means nothing since both parties get a boost from their conventions and superdelegate Willie Horton has not decided how he will vote.
As long as Rush leads the right to want Hillary as a candidate I am betting that she is the most vulnerable.
Posted by: geof01
| May 7, 2008 5:48 PM
That many people want to vote for another 100 years of war?
I remember my brother gloating about McGovern (who told Hillary her time is up) getting only 37.% of the vote against Nixon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1972
I was glad to know that so many Americans didn't have their heads up their ass.
I guess we can blame the Vietnamese. After all, they let the war criminals go home. The day McCain landed on US soil I was being arraigned in Federal Court for Draft Evasion.
Obama must defend the moral high ground so we don't face another 100 years of the Bush Family fortunes.
Posted by: geof01
| May 7, 2008 6:07 PM
Limbaugh: Obama will 'lose big'
Talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who for weeks has promoted Hillary Clinton to keep the Democratic race going, changed course today and pushed Barack Obama.
Obama would be the weakest nominee, declared Limbaugh, who told listeners that Obama "has shown he cannot get the votes Democrats need to win -- blue-collar, working class people. He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that."
"He will lose big," Limbaugh predicted.
Clinton, in more palatable language to Democrats, basically makes the same argument to say she would be the stronger nominee in November.
Limbaugh -- who credits his "Operation Chaos" for Republicans crossing over in open primaries such as the one in Indiana on Tuesday to support Clinton -- "released" Democratic superdelegates to "get in the tank" for Obama, but also urged Clinton to stay in the race.
"You've come too far to quit," he said.
Posted by: LBH
| May 7, 2008 6:27 PM
Obama Campaign Points Finger at Rush
Washington Post Blog ^ | May 07, 2008 | Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman
The Obama campaign believes in the vast right-wing conspiracy.
The Illinois senator's chief political adviser David Axelrod noted to reporters just now that Republican crossovers accounted for about 10 percent of the Indiana primary electorate, and that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton had performed well with the group.
"There were elements of the Republican Party, including Rush Limbaugh, Sen. Clinton's new ally, who were urging people to cross over and vote for her," said Axelrod, referring to the Limbaugh-led "Operation Chaos," a bid to disrupt Obama's path to the nomination and prolong a divisive primary battle. "She obviously was somewhat a beneficiary of that."
Chimed in Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, "Apparently he's got more than just a crush on her." Clinton had joked on Sunday that Limbaugh "always had a crush on me."
Earlier, before either North Carolina or Indiana were called, Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton sent out the transcript of Limbaugh's Tuesday radio blast.
"I have ... been receiving field reports ... from people, commandos, operatives, reporting that they have followed orders and fulfilled their duty," Limbaugh crowed. "In fact, some of the people show up and they ask for a Democrat ballot, and the poll worker says, 'Why, what are you going to do?' He says, 'Operation Chaos,' and they just laugh."
So there you have it. It's not on Obama if the race continues, his aides imply -- it's Rush's fault.
Posted by: LBH
| May 7, 2008 6:31 PM
Rush: It's Democrats tampering with votes
Operation Chaos chief says party leaders fixing outcome of primaries for Obama
By Joe Kovacs
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Radio talker Rush Limbaugh says the Democratic Party is 'fixing' the outcome of the primary process for Obama by excluding delegates from Florida and Michigan.
Rush Limbaugh, the top-rated radio host whose "Operation Chaos" has been encouraging Republican voters to temporarily switch parties and vote for Hillary Clinton to prolong the primary process, is now blaming the Democratic Party for tampering with votes and fixing the outcome for Barack Obama.
"Who is tampering with the primary process?" Limbaugh asked on his national radio program today. "The Democrat[ic] National Committee is doing just that."
"If anyone is tampering with the primaries – not just a primary – if anyone is tampering with our sacred electoral system, it's the Democrat Party, [including] Howard Dean, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid. All of these people who want to deny Florida and Michigan at this crucial time when this primary is still wide open."
Limbaugh pointed out Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts had a greater delegate deficit in his 1980 run than Clinton does now.
"He went to the convention down something like 700 delegates."
Limbaugh's remarks came the day after Illinois Sen. Barack Obama easily won the North Carolina primary, while New York Sen. Hillary Clinton squeaked to a close victory in Indiana.
Limbaugh focused on the Democratic Party's refusal to count the delegates from Florida and Michigan, as party leaders chose to punish those states for moving up their primary elections to have an earlier impact.
"Mrs. Clinton wants the delegations seated," said Limbaugh, "and the Democratic Party does not ... because it would mean Mrs. Clinton would get a majority of delegates in those states and that would gum up the works."
"The Democrat Party is refusing to count the votes of citizens who exercise their franchise so that they can fix the outcome of this race for Barack Obama by not seating Florida and Michigan – the biggest act of disenfranchisement since before the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act."
Limbaugh played audio sound clips from Democratic Party leaders, including Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the party's nominee four years ago. Kerry claimed it was Limbaugh who was throwing a monkey wrench into the process.
"Rush Limbaugh was tampering with the primary and the GOP has clearly declared that they want Hillary Clinton as the candidate," said Kerry.
"We didn't tamper," Limbaugh responded. "People can vote for whoever they want."
Posted by: LBH
| May 7, 2008 6:35 PM
He he he he he~
I'ts getting fun folks!
Posted by: LBH
| May 7, 2008 6:37 PM
Limbaugh throws support to 'weaker' Obama
Rush Limbaugh, between crowing about the success and attention of his "Operation Chaos," switched sides in the Democratic primary this morning.
"I now urge the Democratic superdelegates to go publicly make your mind up for Obama," he said.
Earlier, he said, "I'm now tempted to tell superdelegates to pick Obama because I now believe he would be the weakest nominee."
Limbaugh had been urging his listeners to support Hillary as the only chance for Republican victory in November, and to extend the Democratic primary. Exit polls and anecdotes suggest that many did.
Not sure there are really a lot of dittoheads among the superdelegates, however.
Also, he took an obligatory shot at McGovern, who just called on Clinton to drop out.
"Mcgovern in his lifetime wants to see someone lose worse than he did," he said.
Posted by: LBH
| May 7, 2008 6:44 PM
"We know what's coming," Obama said. "We've seen it already: the attempts to play on our fears and exploit our differences, to turn us against each other for political gain, to slice and dice this country into red states and blue states, blue collar and white collar, white and black and brown."
"This is the race we expect" regardless of who the Democratic nominee is, he went on. "The question, then, is not what kind of campaign they will run; it's what kind of campaign we will run."
Posted by: capt
| May 7, 2008 11:22 PM
Hey LBH,
Thanks for the Rush quotes. He's definitely a five-star member of the "So Wrong for So Long" club... It's definitely reassuring to hear his take and see again how diametrically opposed to reality he and his politically-stunted listeners are.
Your posts inspired me to go look up Obama's speech in NC last night, and watch it in its entirety.
Obama is SO gonna kick McCain's ass...
I'll grieve for Hillary a little longer I expect, but 2006 is just going to be a little appetizer compared to what's going to be an blowout of Repubicans in 2008...
(Remember 2006 LBH? Not a single Democratic incumbent in Congress their seat...while Republicans went down in droves....)
Newt Gingrich: "The Republican brand has been so badly damaged that if Republicans try to run an anti-Obama, anti- Reverend Wright, they are simply going to fail.
"This model has already been tested with disastrous results...
"In 2006, there were six incumbent Republican Senators who had plenty of money, the advantage of incumbency, and traditionally successful consultants.
But the voters in all six states had adopted a simple position: 'Not you.' No matter what the G.O.P. Senators attacked their opponents with, the voters shrugged off the attacks and returned to, 'Not you.'
The danger for House and Senate Republicans in 2008 is that the voters will say, 'Not the Republicans.'"
Why don't you hold off posting again until McCain shows any sign of cracking his 45% ceiling. Until you've got that, your opinions are really just hot air... I don't think he has a chance.
Posted by: Diff
| May 7, 2008 11:29 PM
Diff,
I would agree that 2006 was a blood bath for the Repubs and that 2008 isn't going to be any better for them. They lost in 06 because Repub voters stayed home and held their noses. It wasn't because anything the Dems did or said that gave them the victory. Just take a look at their latest polling numbers (worse than Bush).
I for one was glad they lost because they acted more like Democrats and spent us into generations to come on top of stealing lying and cheating. I will say that the one difference between the Repub voters and the Dem voters is that they throw the bums out when they prove to be crooks were as Dem voters keep re-electing the Jefersons(I have cash in my freezer) scum bags.
Now as far as Obama vs McCain, you've made the case very well already in your defense of Hillary that Obama can't get the Reagan democrats to vote for him. McCain will crush Obama in Florida where you're about to disinfrancise millions of voters. Hillary supporters have said that they wouldn't vote for him either, stay home or vote McCain. Obama will need evry vote and then some to win. Just as the math doesn't add up for Hillary, it also doesn't add up for Obama.
I am not trying to make a case for McCain, just pointing out how disfunctional the Dem party is that one man (Rush Limbaugh) can effect your primary more than the candidates can.
Makes me appreciate changing from a Democrat many years ago to an Independent because both parties are crooked.
I don't believe any of the three candiates are the best America has to offer so I'm not going to jump on the band wagon bus like a mindless troll.
But, I will, and do enjoy the wacky Dems try and spin their way out of the shit hole they put themselves into.
Posted by: LBH
| May 8, 2008 12:07 AM
LBH... There are current state polls in Indiana that show that Indiana could actually be a "swing state" in November. It's really quite amazing. Obviously a temporary result of the intense interest in the primary, but significant nonetheless in signifying what an unusual year this is. Thousands and thousands of Republicans turned out to vote for BOTH Hillary AND Obama! Was that all "Operation Chaos" too? It's not Rush who gets that credit. It's actually Hillary and Obama... People across the political spectrum are on fire to vote against Bush....(or anyone dumb enough to stand in the line of fire in his place...)
Sure, I think Hillary would have shaken up the usual D vs. R demographics a lot more than Obama will...and she would have been a stronger candidate as a result...
Two old white insiders would have totally neutralized all the "cultural" crap...and the race would have been on issues, issues, issue... Even more of a death knell for the R's....
But even now....It's still all bad for the R's....
As for the Reagan Democrats, the big difference is that there's no Reagan this year... They preferred Hillary, of course, 'cause she had the more potent economic populist message... And they liked her compared to the young upstart...
But now Obama's going to inherit that economic populist message... and, as you know, the Republicans might as well be pure anti-matter on that particular score...
EVERYTHING about this year is pure nightmare for the Republicans.... You're a perfect example... Do you know how many Republicans I personally know who've dumped their Republican registrations? For either Independent or even Democrat? I can't even count them! Nationwide it's in the MILLIONS!
I'm telling you.... You're looking at an epic blowout... As Gingrich describes, the Republican brand is utterly trashed... You watch. Even McCain is going to run against the Republicans....
Obama/Wright TV commercials in Louisiana.... and a House seat that's been Republican for generations turns Democratic...
Gingrich: "Not You."
Posted by: Diff
| May 8, 2008 12:49 AM
Some advocate that super delegates should cast their vote for the winner of the nationwide popular vote, thereby ensuring that the superdelegate vote doesn't go against the will of the people. What about the will of the "less popular" voters? Why should their votes be negated by a winner takes all "will of the people" mindset? Is there anything wrong with our SD's casting their vote with PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION in mind?
If some of the SD's have not yet made up their minds this late in the game or, for whatever reason, are reluctant to stand behind one candidate, then let this election be decided at convention.
If I lived in Florida or Michigan, I would want my voice heard. Is there any way other than hashing it out at the convention for these states to be represented?
In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with voters being exposed to more discussion and comparison between these two candidates - right up to and including at the convention.
Posted by: renai
| May 8, 2008 9:52 AM
"If I lived in Florida or Michigan, I would want my voice heard. Is there any way other than hashing it out at the convention for these states to be represented? "
The MI and FL delegates will be seated at the convention after the nominee is decided.
That was what the DNC and the candidates agreed to.
Not complicated.
Posted by: capt
| May 8, 2008 9:56 AM
Post A Comment