Lincoln was a great orator but his skill in playing the egos of those around him (read Gore Vidal’s book sometime on Lincoln) in the back rooms to facilitate his maneuverings to keep our experiment in democracy together was impressive. Teddy Roosevelt, inspiring speaker that he was, his real skill was how he took on his economic class to break their control of the US economy. (FYI he is the originator of the inheritance tax, aka the “death tax” Bush wants to make permanent for the wealthy).
In a protectionist phase of US foreign policy, behind the scene FDR quietly helped England keep that stiff upper lip with supplies in their effort to hold off the Nazi’s until circumstance forced the US to take a role in stopping the fascist rampage.
Anyway to get off my soap box, the rules are the Super delegates (however that sucks unfair) can vote for who they want. I reject the spin of the Clintons using the “Kitchen sink strategy” as somehow not playing by the rules (I mean he out spent her 3 to 1, lets give the electorate some credit here) as it finally got the MSM to take a serious look at just who Obama is. If she keeps winning and regardless of if she does not have the delegate count, she uses this to propel her into the nomination she will have played by the rules, proved she could turn the momentum around and demonstrated she could work the back room to get things done.
This speaks volumes about what a skilled, smart and tenacious politician she is and who I want answering that phone at 3:00 am.
then we’d have a universal health care law in place now. Many Democrats say the way she ran the health care policy debate was horrible – no skill at selling it to the public or building support among politicians, even in her own party. It was debacle that welcomed the Gingrich Revolution and all the harm that has done
<
p>Hillary is banking on her name and fame – loyalties the Clinton’s could not help but make after eight years in office. So many folks signed up with Clinton when she looked inevitable and stayed with her because they had no choice but to dance with what brung em. They don’t want to be on the outs if Obama wins.
<
p>And, she’s betting she can rip down Obama, make the race ugly, fight it to a draw and pull it out on superdels. Something I don’t see necessarily happening. You provide not a scratch of evidence of any back room political skill she has – nothing she has done that comes close to an FDR or Lincoln.
<
p>Get it done! She has got nothing done. This experience she claims is 35 years of coat tail riding, a few months at CDF, a few months organizing for McGovern. Most of it was as corporate lawyer and spouse to a popular Governor and President.
<
p>That all said, I think she has been a pretty damn good campaigner when down – much better than she was when she was inevitable and arrogant that she had it in the bag. She’s got massive guts and never gives up. She is more than capable of being a good President and I do admire her (but sort of in the same way I respect Derek Jeter’s clutchness, but want to see a brick land on his head). If I can see past my anger, if she pulls this thing out, I may just have to vote for her.
<
p>But for now, I want her to lose big time.
… is where she got her masters degree in how the process works as opposed to how she thought it worked which is why I make the point I do. Obama ain’t been through that right of fire by any stretch of the imagination.
<
p>I also recall Clinton got in with less than 50% of the vote in 92 so in 94 the Perot crowd came back to the fold. Gingrich’s role is overrated.
<
p>As to the rest of your assertions in the light of the shine coming off your candidate I would read it in that context and let it pass.
I’ve heard nothing from her that suggests she has learned and will do it differently this time.
You ask a fair question. Did she learn? How much? Better to go with someone who has stumbled [and maybe learned, maybe not] or with someone who hasn’t had the chance to stumble yet?
<
p>I don’t know the answer. This election is absolutely fascinating to me.
Yes, the woman has the fortitude of an ox and an amazing can do spirit – but her campaign was fairly inept administratively.
<
p>They got caught out in all the caucus states. They got caught out financially when it mattered. They had no backup plan for after Feb 5th. Frankly, I don’t think she should be in this situation given the advantages she started with. Obama has been a revelation and maybe none of us could have predicted that. But Clinton seemed to be one of the last to notice what was happening. I just wonder what else she may fail to anticipate if she is the nominee and/or wins office.
<
p>Ultimately, I think she lacks vision and she lacks judgement. This campaign gives me no reason to think otherwise. I really respect her knowledge and spirit but ultimately it is the other two traits I want in a president.
<
p>
Even the Phoenix (which hasn’t been terribly kind to Hillary) has acknowledged the issues with Barack. They rightfully point out that Hillary has had 16 years of vetting by the media and the Republican attack machine and is still standing….while Obama’s vetting hasn’t even begun yet.
<
p>Additionally, as much as you want Obama to be your date for the “prom,” – he does have, in the words of Steven Stark, “some enormous holes heading into the autumn homestretch.”
<
p>Not a problem yet? How about this:
<
p>
<
p>The process of selecting the nominee needs to play itself out. If the Dems are going to win the WH in November, we need to have the best candidate with (most) of right stuff. Insisting that the pesky girl should just get out of the way and let our guy win is counterproductive. We NEED this process to help us get the right candidate. I know, I know – “for the good of the party” – but you have to be careful of what you wish for come November. The process was created for a reason…there’s no reason not to let it play out. As Sabutai has rightfully pointed out – we have plenty of time. đŸ™‚
Virginia isn’t major? Georgia?
<
p>It’s a foolish line of thinking. EVs matter, and it doesn’t matter if you get them from just a few large states or a large number of smaller ones.
<
p>More interesting is the “swing” state inspection — neither CA nor GA will be in play for this election, regardless of the candidate. The question is who will win in states that tend to be close?
<
p>I posted about it in Swing!, so I won’t rewrite it here.
<
p>New HRC Campaign slogan; “Never Underestimate Pesky Girl Power!”
<
p>Imagine Ahmadinejad trying to deal with that…..:)
Although there are still delegates to be awarded, the net change of the March 4th primaries is +12 delegates for Clinton. That is +1 TX, +9 OH, +5 RI and -3 VT. So going forward, what is going to play out?
<
p>Well next up is WY on Saturday, and although Obama may be favored, at best he will recover 2 or 3 delegates. Then onto MS next Tuesday, with 33 delegates at stake, where Obama may pick up a few more. Then an extended delay until PA, where Clinton must make another move, as the remaining states are likely pretty well balanced.
<
p>So it appears that even with a Clinton victory in PA, she will still trail by about 75 delegates, and that includes her current lead among superdelegates. Where will it go from there? Will FL and MI come back into play, or will the superdelegates be the deciding factor?
<
p>The “party elders” will have to weigh in, either forcing more votes with FL and MI, or making some “Solomon” decision and getting the contestants to agree. I suspect that bringing in FL and MI, although good from the point of view of giving all delegates a say, will only postpone the ultimate decision.
<
p>A couple of factors that will influence them will be electability and long term party success. A CNN survey indicates 75% of Clinton-voters would support Obama, whereas 87% of Obama-voters would support Clinton. That would lean them toward Clinton, and together with her victory in the bell-weather state of OH, may be enough for them to direct the superdelegates toward her. But, that high-handed pressure is sure to have severe racial and other repercussions, and may damage the party beyond repair for some time. Therefore, they will have 2 choices: 1) Let the delegates follow the will of the majority of the voters, and thereby likely nominate Obama at the risk of losing in November, or 2) strike a compromise with Obama and Clinton to put them up as a team, almost certain to win in November, and unlikely to damage the party internally.
<
p>So it is pretty clear to me that the second option will be followed, the only question is who is topping the ticket. I expect that will be the person with the most committed delegates at the time the compromise is reached, likely Obama unless Clinton gets a lot of superdelegate commitments before PA.
As of noon on 3/5 from AP:
<
p>”Late returns showed Clinton emerged from Rhode Island, Vermont, Texas and Ohio with a gain of 12 delegates on her rival for the night, with another dozen yet to be awarded in The Associated Press’ count.
<
p>That left Obama with an overall lead of 101 delegates, 1,562-1,461 as the rivals look ahead to the final dozen contests on the calendar. It takes 2,025 to win the nomination.”
<
p>…
<
p>”There were 370 Democratic delegates at stake in Tuesday’s contests, and nearly complete returns showed Clinton outpaced Obama in Ohio, 74-65, in Rhode Island, 13-8, and in the Texas primary, 65-61.
<
p>Obama won in Vermont, 9-6, and was ahead in the Texas caucuses, 30-27. Ten of the dozen that remained to be awarded were in Texas; the other two in Ohio.”
…in Texas the 66% were awarded by about 2,800,000 Voters
<
p>The 33% were awarded by about 200,000 at Caucuses (who got to vote twice, Richard Daily must be singing in heaven or er hell)
<
p>Lends credence to it being a larger Hillary win in spite of the delegate count as far as Super delegates are concerned.