Fascinating machinations as the Democratic primary campaign reaches its final stages.
Mr. Dean said again Sunday that he wanted superdelegates to announce their choices before July. The final primary contests are June 3.
“We need to figure this out before the convention,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “We need time to heal.”
Sounds like a reasonable idea to me.
It looks to me like the walls are closing in on Senator Clinton, which I think helps to explain her absurd position on the gas tax discussed below by Charley. She’s talking crazy now, because she’s desperate to get some delegates on the board. But that’s just a guess, and like Socrates the only thing I am sure of is how little I know.
goldsteingonewild says
Also helps that he turned in what reads like (I didn’t see it, just read transcript) a command performance with Chris Wallace on FOX.
<
p>Part 1 he seemed to comfortably handle Wright, Ayres, race, etc.
<
p>Part 2 he was fantastic on taxes and where he’d be wiling to stand up to Dem special interest groups (hey, I can’t help it, his first answer was charter schools!)
<
p>Part 3 a couple questions about Petraeus, “ducking debates,” etc.
<
p>* * *
<
p>A. Helps shore up supers who might be influenced by HRC’s “He can’t beat McCain” drumbeat.
<
p>B. Obama talks like a human being. It’s actually what McCain did in 2000, which he’s partially abandoned. In the Atlantic, Mike Hirschorn describes HRC by contrast
theopensociety says
I have listened to Hillary Clinton speak in person at least five times, and everytime she has resonated with the crowd. She talks about issues that are important to them like joba and healthcare. It is too bad Mike Hirshorn does not understand what she is talking about or maybe it is that he just does not care to listen, which is even worse. By the way, if in fact many of HRC’s crowds are made up of working class or middle class voters as the press has reported, and those voters are not as smart as the highly educated supporters of Barack Obama (something I do not subscribe to), then how come the HRC crowds get what Hillary is talking about and someone as educated as Mike Hirshorn does not?
goldsteingonewild says
do you think HRC or BO comes across as more authentic/less canned?
migraine says
theopensociety says
They have different speaking styles. HRC’s style apparently resonates with middle class and working class voters more, and BO’s style apparently resonates more with wealthier, higher educated voters. (Do you really want to use initials for him?) đŸ˜‰
sabutai says
I remember when Obama’s staff was talking about how Obama was going to “take on Fox”. Then he shows up, says nice things about Republicans, and promises to come back soon.
<
p>Nice.
skewl-zombie says
johnk says
very poor idea from the Obama camp. Kos’ perspective.
john-from-lowell says
laurel says
i was disappointed to hear today that obama declined the invitation to hold a lincoln-douglass style debate with clinton. i know, everyone moans at the thought of ANOTHER DEBATE. but if i understand correctly, this type of debate is unmoderated, the participants questioning each other. i think this, or something closer to it, is what we needed from the start. i know it isn’t in obama’s interest to expose himself to possible loss of ground in another debate, but i’m sad that we’re missing out on what is probably our last chance to have one meaningful, substantive debate this year.
theopensociety says
Obama is declining to debate because despite claiming he is all about a new kind of politics, he really is not. The old politics that Obama disparages so much in his speeches says you do not debate if you are ahead, even though it allows the voters to see the candidates in another setting other than the candidates’ own staged campaign events. He has decided to do anything to win, even if that means dissing the voters of Indiana and North Caroline.
<
p>BTW, the excuse that there have been enough debates is insincere coming from someone who says he believes in open government. The voters of NC and Indiana are just now focusing on the presidential race becasue they now have to make a decision. There is a good chance that many of the NC and Indiana voters have not watched many debates and the Obama campaign knows this.
<
p>I wonder if this is a sign of things to come; I mean campaign promises that are not met.
john-from-lowell says
I have watched Clinton supporters, for months now, try to bring Obama down to Hillary’s level.
<
p>Once again, TOS, you are at your frantic work, trying to portray Obama in the worst
lightlite.<
p>Some history for you, courteousy of MTP:
<
p>
<
p>Cue mindless regurgitation of pro-Clinton, faux democracy talking points.
theopensociety says
I think there should be debates between candidates in every election, as many times as possible. Paid political campaigns are not sufficient. If Hillary Clinton refused to debate an opponent during her Senate race, then that is unfortunate. (The quote you posted is a little confusing, however. It says she did debate Lazio and I seem to remember a number of debates. Not usually a good idea to use Tim Russert to support a position because he tends to take things out of context.)
<
p>I do not like it when candidate say they will not debate their opponenets because I think the voters miss out. In this case, the voters of North Carolina and Indiana are not being given an opportunity that voters in other states had. I understand the strategy behind it. Conventional wisdom is that it does not help a frontrunner to debate an opponent. If Obama is really about changing politics for the better, however, I would think he would be in favor of holding more debates not less.
john-from-lowell says
I agree:
<
p>But:
<
p>He has to win first. It is just like Rove to try to make an opponent’s strength their weakness:
<
p>How many times can we say:
<
p>If Obama is really about…
If Obama is really about…
If Obama is really about…
If Obama is really about…
theopensociety says
You might want to check it out. Just because something is conventional wisdom, does not make it true and certainly does not make it unchangeable. (Darn, there’s that word change again.)
stomv says
<
p>If I had to guess, of the folks who are eligible to vote for BHO or HRC in NC and IN, more than 90% have already made up their minds — it will be a GOTV effort much more than an exercise in persuasion.
<
p>After all, people in NC and IN have televisions, radios, newspaper subscriptions, and brains & patriotism.
afertig says
Unfortunately, that’s not what Clinton proposed. She proposed a debate where candidates simply speak in turns for 2 minutes, with no moderators. Two minutes isn’t exactly a whole lot of time beyond the 1 minute soundbites we currently have. And, ideally, good moderators would ask the important tough questions of both candidates. With the forum Clinton proposed, real critiques will come across as attacks rather than pointed questions. Alternatively, it might allow attacks to have plenty of time to sink in before the other candidate can get in his or her response.
<
p>A real Lincoln Douglas styled debates were formated as follows. Suppose Douglas started first (as he did in 4 of the debates.) Douglas spoke for an hour, then Lincoln spoke for an hour and a half. Then the first candidate was allowed a half hour “rejoinder.”
<
p>Now, I can’t imagine that would fly on television. But what about 20 minutes? One candidate would speak for 15 minutes, then the TV would cut to commercial break. The next candidate would speak on the same topic(s) for another 15 minutes, cut to commercial. Then let each have a 10 minute closing argument. That would be far more akin to an L-D debate.
john-from-lowell says
laurel says
He could have challenged Clinton on the details, even embarrassing her and gaining points for himself by calling for something much more substantive. He just really, really doesn’t want to debate, is all I can conclude.
afertig says
But let’s just call the debate what it is. I don’t disagree with you in principle. I would say, however, that I’m not especially eager for more of the same sort of debates we’ve had in the past, which is basically what Clinton proposed.
massparent says
I favor Obama, if only because he represents the future, and Clinton represents the past. If the Democratic party can’t support the candidate of the future, I don’t know if it has a future.
<
p>I think both candidates are somewhat flawed electorally; Clinton for failing to take her early frontrunner status and seal the deal in January, and Obama, because he hasn’t shown he can win on the electoral map.
<
p>But now here is the deal. Clinton should be arguing the electoral map itself, I think, rather than the popular vote. What if the spoils of the races that have actually been won by each candidate were split based on the electoral map? I haven’t tried to do the math, except for noting that the states Clinton has won have been the big ones that Democrats need to win in November. If Obama can’t win those away from another Democrat, how can he win them when it counts?
<
p>Personally, I think the superdelegates ought to abstain on the first ballot, and then go for a unity ticket of Gore/Obama ticket.
<
p>On another note, I think Democrats should close primary voting for crossover Republicans in the future. Why let the other party choose how long a contended primary contest goes on, or which candidate gets to run in the fall?
tblade says
That idea is just insane.
theopensociety says
Why should Al Gore even be considered after a number of candidates actually worked hard for the nomination? Why do you think the solution you are suggesting would not piss off every voter who took part in the process? If the Democratic party nominated Al Gore, it would mean the end of the Democratic party.
<
p>The first thing the Democratic Party should do is get rid of caucuses. They are undemocratic and they are not a good way of testing a candidate for the general election. I have heard horrible stories of how unfair some of the caucuses were, including miscounts that determined delegates. It is one of the most unreported travesties of this campaign.
bob-neer says
Caucuses are an execrable vestige of the smoke-filled room Party politics of the past. The sooner they are eliminated the better in the future.
john-from-lowell says
I like the caucus for its actvist tilt.
<
p>There is alot more “smoke filled room”-iness in the many post primary events that stock up the convention delegates.
<
p>We go through hell knowing the candidates, but we know little to nothing about who actually chooses the nominee.
<
p>Pardon, half the SDs are elected officials.
rst1231 says
<
p>Not counting Superdelegats or MI and FL – In a winner take all so far the count would be HC 1484, BO 1353.
john-from-lowell says
Because we ALL know that only Hillary can win CA, NY, MA, MI, CT …..
<
p>I am starting to see how Gingrich and DeLay have kept this party down.
<
p>Of course, once Howard Dean shows up it is FU Howie, Yeeeaaah!
<
p>We are fuckin’ priceless, us Dems.
hlpeary says
If an Obama nomination is so in the bag, why are they trying so hard to discard Fl and MI rank and file Democrats? If Obama is so far and away the choice of the vast majority of Democrats, why would they spend a second worrying about counting the rank-and-file Florida Democrats or re-doing a primary in Michigan?
<
p>For the answer you may not find on BMG home page:
http://tominpaine.blogspot.com…
<
p>It’s food for thought…
<
p>The DNC may push through a stop gap measure to give the appearance of including FL and MI, but the rank and file voters in those important states are not as dumb as they seem to think…they get it…
<
p>Howard Dean and the obama campaign may be gleeful if they can keep FL and MI out of the mix but in Nov. many Democrats may rue the day Dean and the Obama were able to leave FL and MI rank and file out in the cold.
tom-m says
For the sake of argument, I’ll give you Florida, but how can we possibly include Michigan when most of the candidates weren’t even on the ballot?
<
p>FL and MI aren’t apples-to-apples. There’s no way you can translate the results in MI into a legitimate delegate or popular vote count that is fair to everyone. Any way you slice it, someone is getting screwed.
stomv says
syphax says
The DNC Rules Committee.
<
p>Who was on this committee?
<
p>You might find some interesting intersections with the Clinton campaign.
<
p>These folks were for stripping delegates from MI and FL before they were against it.
<
p>Don’t blame Obama for this mess.
theopensociety says
I am happy to see that someone with the Obama campaign is admitting that the populace does not vote in states with caucuses. They, however, do vote in the general election, just as they voted in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, California, Texas (sort of), and Florida in primaries. Guess who won in those states? So, if the super-delegates really care about selecting the candidate that will best ensure the Democrats win in November, they should select the candidate who has done better in those contests in which the populace voted.
<
p>BTW, as I state in another post, I have heard horror stories from some people who were at some of the caucuses about how they were conducted. As a Democrat and as someone who believes in democracy, I am appalled. The Democratic party needs to get rid of the caucus system. They are a holdover from the old days when decisions were made in the backroom. They should not be used to pick a presidential nominee. (It is a little ironic that Obama, who claims to be about changing the politics of old, is ahead in the delegate count because of the caucus system.)
hoyapaul says
I don’t know many people who refuse to recognize the problems with the caucus system — clearly, it’s something that must be reformed. I would also add that another thing that clearly needs to be reformed is the lack of the winner-take-all system, which has made it impossible to get a candidate without superdelegates in this primary. The Dems need to strongly consider allowing winner-take-all.
<
p>However, these are the rules of the game this time around, so that’s what we’re stuck with. Based on the rules of this years game (which includes the exclusion of MI and FL), Obama has squeezed out a win to this point on all reasonable measures, something that looks like it will hold up. Therefore, he should be the nominee. Period.
<
p>I guess I’m just so fed up with reading blog posts where partisans of one or another candidate insist on their particular candidate, come hell or high water. My position is: I frankly don’t care about Obama or Clinton personally. To me, they are simply placeholders for what any Democrat would do with the Presidency: better initiatives, much better judge appointments, people I agree with appointed to administration posts, etc. This is why if Clinton were in Obama’s position right now, I would emphatically want him to drop out. I don’t care about the individual seeking the Presidency nearly as much as I care about getting a Democratic Administration in.
<
p>I really don’t understand why people get so worked about other individuals and their ambitions. It’s what is best for the party, not what is best for some man or woman seeking to be POTUS.
theopensociety says
And I support Hillary Clnton. Nor would I ever call for Barack Obama or any candidate to drop out unless Hillary Clinton had already reached the number of pledged delegates necessary to win the nomination. The fact that Barck Obama has a slim majority of the delegates pledged to him does not make him the winner or the nominee. He or any other person needs to get 2025 delegates to support him. Calling for Hillary Clinton to drop out when she still could reach that number is disingeuous for supporters of a campaign that claims to be about a new form of politics. To many of us it sounds like more of the same divisive politics of old.
<
p>I also think it is important that people in states that have been ignored in the past, get to vote. I saw people in Penn excited about the presidential primary in Pennsylvania, something that has not happened for a long time. I am disturbed that supporters of Barack Obama do not value the opportunity for people in states other than NH and Iowa being able to cast their votes in such an important race. (I think the candidate himself has publically state he thinks the process should go on.) It actually is helping the Democratic party to continue with the primary process until all people have voted.
<
p>As for saying it does not matter who is president, as long as they are a Democrat, I have one question for you: if the choice were between Jimmy Carter and Franklin Roosevelt, whose records for getting things accomplished or not accomplished we all know, would you still feel the same way? Who is President does matter, even if Congress ends up in the Democrats hands. Democrats in Congress do not vote lockstep with one another.
theopensociety says
hoyapaul says
The problem with your position is that you say that neither candidate should drop out until one reaches the number of pledged delegates necessary to win the nomination. Since this is impossible given the Democrats’ unwise use of proportional delegation splits, I don’t see your point. Someone WILL have to drop out without reaching the pledged delegate count — to win will require superdelegate votes.
<
p>
<
p>That is a legitimate argument, though I disagree with it (said as the Republicans are licking their chops at the prospect of the fight continuing). It’s interesting how many Democrats who were hoping for a drawn-out Republican campaign (like Kos) have turned on a dime and now claim it’s a GOOD thing that this is happening. I’m sure that if we had our nominee and it was still Romney vs. McCain, those same Democrats would be gleeful at the Republicans’ predicament, and not worrying that the drawn-out campaign helps the Republicans. In the end, we’ll just have to see whether the Democrats can recover from the drawn out primary process. If it goes until the beginning of July at the latest, I think they can and will; if it goes to the convention, then McCain will be the next President.
<
p>
<
p>I don’t see the relevance of this. Sure, in hindsight of course I’d much rather have FDR than Carter. But it’s revisionist history to suggest that FDR had a “record of accomplishment” that was widely respected before he got into office. In fact, he wasn’t many people’s first choice because many didn’t think he was all that impressive, record-wise or intelligence-wise.
<
p>I think this proves my point. You just don’t know what you’re going to get with an individual until s/he is actually President. For every “outsider” like Carter who fails, there’s an very accomplished and respected President like Herbert Hoover and James Buchanan who also fails. That’s why I don’t put much stock in individual attributes and much more in simply greasing the path for a Democrat to get in. Right now (or at least in a month or so), greasing the path for the nominee means ending the primary campaign and getting behind the nominee, regardless if it’s Hillary or Obama who get their personal ambitions quashed.
christopher says
“The problem with your position is that you say that neither candidate should drop out until one reaches the number of pledged delegates necessary to win the nomination. Since this is impossible given the Democrats’ unwise use of proportional delegation splits, I don’t see your point. Someone WILL have to drop out without reaching the pledged delegate count — to win will require superdelegate votes.”
<
p>Not a problem at all. They will each have a certain number of delegates with the supers neededto make up the gap. At the end of the process, whether at convention or earlier, one will win and one will lose. The supers do not need to wait for one to drop out before they make up their mind.
<
p>I also find proportional a lot more representative than the GOP winner-take-all method. I don’t find it unwise at all.
hoyapaul says
<
p>In general, I agree — in fact, I think there’s little doubt democratic systems with proportional representation for legislatures (as in some European countries) better represents voters than winner-take-all. But in this case, we’re talking about a primary (which virtually no other countries have) to nominate a party representative. Therefore, in my mind, the key is to get to a nominee as quickly as possible while still maintaining fairness and representativeness, which the winner-take-all system still does (of course, you could have a modified winner-take all that still gives the loser some delegates, just not a nearly equal number like it is now).
<
p>Besides, this primary will be decided by superdelegates one way or another, which isn’t particularly representative either. A winner-take-all system without supers and with all primaries is more representative, I believe, than the current system.
bob-neer says
As I wrote upthread, TOS, caucuses are horrific. But there are many things that are flawed about the primary system, including the fact that the votes of FL and MI won’t count because they didn’t follow the rules, however unfair as a general principle that may seem, and however unfortunate for the candidacy of Senator Clinton.
<
p>Personally, I think that if Obama’s name had been on the ballot in MI, and if both candidates had campaigned in FL, that he would have crushed Senator Clinton and very possibly have clinched the nomination by now. By this analysis, Clinton partisans should be happy those the results from those states don’t count.
<
p>To paraphrase, one nominates with the primary process one has, not the one one might want to have.
hoyapaul says
What I can’t stand is the whining about process when the rules of the game were already in place. If someone has proof of voter fraud, illegal activity, etc. then that is a different story. But the rules are the rules. It is utterly irrelevant that Clinton would have come out ahead with FL or MI, or that she would have won (which is likely) with a winner-take-all system. She also would be in the lead if the voting age in the Democratic primary was 35. But it’s not, so we go with the results that flow from the rules.
<
p>Many say they want the process to play out until everyone gets to vote. Fine. But if Obama supporters try to come up with a new excuse if Clinton secures the pledged delegate/popular vote lead at the end, or Clinton supporters if Obama does so, then we’ll know that it’s not about letting the people vote and much more to do with a cultish commitment to an individual rather than the broader and far more important goal of getting a Democrat in office.
bluetoo says
Your incessantly pro-Obama, anti-Clinton bias is becoming almost hilarious.
<
p>Obama would have crushed Clinton in Florida had both of them campaigned there? This is not borne out by any facts. In fact, Clinton is much stronger than Obama in Florida against McCain in head-to-head matchups.
<
p>Since a few weeks before and since the Pennsylvania Primary, Clinton clearly has the momentum in this race. Today’s AP-Ipsos Poll has Clinton running 9 points ahead of McCain in a nationwide matchup, compared to Obama running essentially even with McCain.
<
p>And today, Gov. Easley of North Carolina, who is also a Superdelegate, is ready to endorse Clinton.
<
p>Yeah, this is still a very close race…I still give the edge to Obama. And while I support Clinton, I will support whomever the Democratic nominee turns out to be.
<
p>But to completely discount Clinton the way that you continue to do is just plain silly.
bob-neer says
I don’t discount Senator Clinton at all. I think she is a fierce campaigner. I personally like Obama better than Clinton, increasingly so as the campaign has progressed, but I like Senator Clinton more than McCain.
<
p>I also don’t discount the Clinton supporters on this blog. In fact, you convinced me that even if Clinton won by less than 20 points in PA (which I still think she needed to accomplish) she had a valid claim to stay in the race.
<
p>Clinton v. Obama in a proper election in FL is not borne out by any facts at all because it never happened and apparently never will. Thus, I don’t see how you can call my prediction silly. It’s based on the same facts as yours, which is to say none. By all means, predict that Clinton would crush Obama if it makes you feel cheerful. đŸ™‚
<
p>As to “momentum,” that also seems silly to me. Clinton had all the momentum going into this election — almost everyone thought she would win, didn’t they? But now Obama is ahead. Similarly, Obama had all the momentum after Iowa, but Clinton won New Hampshire convincingly. So much for momentum.
<
p>Anyway, I’m glad I can amuse you. That’s worth something, and it may be all the Democrats take away from this extraordinary primary campaign if each side winds up alienating the other so thoroughly that the Republicans win again.
sabutai says
The score is Obama 52%-Clinton 48% and we’re told the walls are closing in.
christopher says
…the title of this diary is telling. Notice it says, “Fourth Quarter Score”, not “Final Buzzer Score”. There’s a big difference, just ask this year’s Super Bowl champions – the Patriots:)
bob-neer says
One never knows.
striker57 says
and Senator Obama is in a deadheat with McCain.
<
p>
<
p>Which walls would those be Bob?
matthew02144 says
Don’t forget too, Clinton is up by 9 in Indiana, and Obama has sunk to a 10-12 point lead in North Carolina, with 10% undecided.
<
p>Looks like things aren’t as perfect for Obama as they should be a week out from the next primary…
<
p>(polls and sources can be found at my site)
john-from-lowell says
bob-neer says
And the increasing likelihood that Obama will end the campaign with more elected delegates and thus the strongest claim to the nomination, of course.
chriso says
on Meet the Press (at least as reported by AP) is that he said he expects the Supers to vote for the most electable candidate, not necessarily the one with the most pledged delegates. He also said the race was essentially a tie. This seems to be a clear repudiation of the Obama camp’s arguments. It seems to me that Dean is hedging his bets as the cracks start to appear in Obama’s armor.
<
p>Also, could people please stop talking so knowingly about “changing the rules” when it’s clear that they have no idea what the rules say? When Florida and Michigan were punished, there were two remedies offered. They could put forward a plan for a revote, or they could appeal to the Credentials Committee to be seated. Hillary has pushed for revotes, and has also said she is urging her delegates to seat the delegations from the two states. Now someone please tell me exactly which rules she is trying to “change.”
<
p>And Bob, I’m sorry but we do have a clear indicator of how the vote would have gone in Florida. Neither candidate campaigned there, although Obama did run TV commercials. Hillary swamped him, and subsequesnt polls still show her ahead in the state. And this was right after South Carolina, when the press was painting Hillary as a loser, and Bill’s comments about Jesse Jackson were being mischaracterized as racist. Of course we can’t say with certainty exactly what the final margin would be, but it’s just silly to portray the situation as if we have no evidence to go on.
bob-neer says
Because all, or almost all, of the polls put him ahead.
<
p>But he didn’t. Because they had a proper vote.
<
p>So frankly I don’t think either side can make any kind of convincing statement about FL. Or, put another way, both sides can claim with equal justification that their candidate would have crushed the other.
<
p>The fact is there wasn’t a proper vote in either FL or MI.
chriso says
because “that measure” includes actual voters going to the polls. Both candidates were on equal footing in Florida (other than Obama running TV ads) and huge numbers of people went to the polls. Everyone seems to want to ignore this little fact. Obama supporters seem to be pushing this idea that a disproportionate number of his supporters stayed home, although there’s no evidence to support this. My point about the opinion polls is simply that they continue to bear out the results of the actual polling, despite constant claims by Obama supporters that he would do much better if the vote were held today.
<
p>Let’s face it, campaigns rarely stand on principle. Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire, and because polling showed him doing badly there. If he thought he would win a revote in either state, he would have supported it in a heartbeat.
john-from-lowell says
You’re puking up the Clinton talking point that obama stopped the revotes.
<
p>That is BS!
<
p>Put up 5 links from non-Clinton sources saying that Obama personally squashed revotes.
<
p>Parrot!
chriso says
although ordering me to post five links is more than a little obnoxious. And surely you can’t mean that the only things the Obama campaign are responsible for are statements that come directly from his mouth? That’s either naive, stupid or (I suspect) simply disingenuous.
<
p>But here’s one:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com…
<
p>The DNC and Clinton camps agreed to a revote plan subject to the Obama campaign agreeing. Instead, the Obama camp issued a lengthy memo why it wouldn’t work.
<
p>Or how about “Michigan Revote at Risk as Obama Witholds Support”?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit…
<
p>Now let’s play a little game. Can John from Lowell post anything of substance, or will it be simply more name calling?
john-from-lowell says
Your cited WaPo article writes a few noteworthy things:
<
p>
<
p>Also,
When arguing against the validity of caucuses, Clinton has said that some voters are disenfranchised like seniors and members of the military. (Will back up later, if you challenge the point)
<
p>And here Obama counsel cites the same point:
<
p>Gotta run, literally.
Thanks for playing along. You’re a good sport.
<
p>