February 13, 2008
Superdelegates Or Bust
The tone of this afternoon's call with Clinton advisers Penn/Wolfson/Cecil was unusually grim following HRC’s 2/12 walloping. The day's spin -- that all delegates matter and should be counted, superdelegates, too -- seemed to ignore the contest's current trendlines and the deep hunger many voters have expressed for a new kind of politics.
"We don't make distinctions between certain kinds of delegates," Wolfson emphasized.
Well, that's nice that you guys don't make distinctions. But the difference between the two categories of delegates is becoming ever clearer to voters. Last night, Gov. Eliot Spitzer, an HRC supporter, was on The Colbert Report, of all shows, explaining to the show's younger audience that superdelegates (who he joked don’t wear capes and tights) are a legit part of the process.
Prominent Dems (see Donna Brazile) have said, of course, that allowing a final decision on the nom to be made by a cabal of governors, members of Congress and party hangers-on would be not just bad for the Dems' populist message but a knock on democracy.
So having lost eight straight primaries and caucuses, here is HRC’s team still hammering home that they can claim victory on the backs of these super special delegates, who were not created to break a tie between two mainstream candidates but to prevent a fringe operator from stealing the nom.
Today’s call made me wonder for the first time: Is this all the Clinton team has left to peddle? That with some creative math, she's still the likely nom.
Sure, technically speaking, by adding in those superdelegates the contest is tight. And with contests pending in WI, TX, OH and PA, there are still enough delegates in play, (should Clinton win big in those states). But cosmically, the HRC team line -- superdelegates or bust -- feels out of touch with the already expressed desires of those voters turning to Obama. Obfuscation is out in 2008.
Obama last night in Madison, Wisc., touched on the very matter that the Clinton folks seem to be missing: “We can’t keep playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and somehow expect a different result – because it’s a game that ordinary Americans are losing. We are going to put this game to an end.”
Why wouldn’t Clinton, potentially faced with an uphill climb, try the unexpected – even if it’s politically risky? She could say, ‘We’re going to fight hard in these upcoming primaries, we are going to make our case for my experience and judgment and proposals, and we’ll let the voters decide. Superdelegates, be damned, let’s take them off the table. This election is about you.’
Maybe that move, of all her campaign’s machinations, would inspire a second look from voters. Winning at all cost can never really be winning if the hearts of the people are lost in the process.
(JENNIFER SKALKA)
Posted at 08:19 PM
Comments
Obama last night in Madison, Wisc., touched on the very matter that the Clinton folks seem to be missing: “We can’t keep playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and somehow expect a different result – because it’s a game that ordinary Americans are losing. We are going to put this game to an end.”
Oh really? He's been a playa since arriving in Washington. "We're going to put this game to an end"? How many opportunities has he squandered to put that game to an end ?
Today’s call made me wonder for the first time
Why has nobody pointed out that he is part of the very culture he's now finding it convenient to criticize?
Why is he talking about change now when he hasn't done anything thus far to bring that change about?
Did today's call not make you wonder any of that? Or are you also caught up in the awesomeness that is Obama that you can't be bothered?
corinne | 02.13.08 09:18 PM
 |
Great analysis. Clinton needs to make news, to change the dynamic. "Electoral college"ing her way to the finish line does not do that.
gulc2l | 02.13.08 09:25 PM
|
Corinne -
You're dumb. It's ok, that you are this way - as the Dems have room in their party for all sorts of people.
Yet - you are arguing a point that requires you to have zero knowledge of how things work in the Senate.
You see, the senate is a group of 100. It requires, at least in this senate - 60 votes to get things passed. You see, Republicans on the other side of the aisle, they don't like Dems to win. So they fillibuster everything, forcing these 60 vote margins ...
1 man, or even for your misguided and out of touch candidate - 1 woman, are not able to come in and immediately change everything. They merely sponsor bills, fight for legislation, and eventually compromise on items so that SOMETHING can be done. Its called bureaucracy ... Ever take a civics class?
I wonder if you point those stringent measures of Obama towards your own candidate. What exactly has Hillary done to change the world in her 2 terms as Senator?
Anything?
Wait - ummm - nope ...well ... nope again ...
Please, for the sake of our party, vote, but whatever you do, don't speak for it.
Corinne is Not Smart | 02.14.08 02:30 AM
|
Yeah I think its time that Clinton head out of this race... I dont think many would vot for her in Nov if it comes down to her winning based purly on superdelages..:/ I believe she is a great person and senator as a proud New Yorker... but we Dems are going up against a fight that in my impression has already been predetermined as far as Rep see it.... Its time for Obama to prepare for the fight not still be fighting to get in.... If anything Clinton should be his running mat since the country clearly is stuck on both of them...just my opinion...
Nechia C | 02.14.08 10:48 AM
|
Corinne is Not Smart | 02.14.08 02:30 AM
Thank you so much for your wisdom. I don't know how I got along without it.
Not.
And you can stop behaving like the assclown we now know you are.
corinne | 02.14.08 12:25 PM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
