Listening to Pennsylvania returns, one gets the distinct sense that this will be going down to the wire, with the superdelegates becoming the ultimate deciders in this race. Don't get me wrong here, Obama may very well end up with the number of delegates needed to win the nomination. But the drama isn't over, and neither is the race.
Many of the pundits are (rightly) noting some interesting points that are worthy of some consideration:
1. Despite outspending Clinton by a margin of more than 2-1, he still cannot put her away.
2. Despite Clinton's negatives (to include her credibility problems), he still cannot put her away.
3. With the win in PA, Hillary has won every large industrial state's primary (with the exception of Obama's home state of Illinois).
With several hours to kill, the TV talking heads had lots of time to expostulate about many aspects of the contest. While many of them were analyzing the reasons behind the results, it was Obama's response that caught my attention.
I thought it was very interesting that Obama and his team had known there would be a significant loss, evidenced by his quick escape to Indiana immediately after the polls closed. Big name acts like Mellencamp don't just donate their time on the spur of the moment. It was obvious this was already set up well in advance.
But that wasn't all that stood out.
To respond to a ten percentage point loss, Obama returned to the valuable strategy that got him into this front-runner position to begin with. He gave a speech.
Unfortunately for him, there was nothing new in the way of specifics, no new proposals, and no new strategies. Just more of the same old tired "Yes we can" and "It's our turn" rhetoric.
4 comments:
I know you'll be shocked, but I have some opinions on this, too.
First, Hillary continues to absolutely trounce the "man with no middle name" in all the big states that will be most important in November. The Obama-ites continue to ignore this fact.
Obama-ites continue to say that if the superdelegates dare vote for Clinton, they'll be "stealing the nomination from a black man" (read, they'll be racists). What a joke. First, only liberals would dream up a system where the winner of each contest has to share the spoils with the loser; and even then, has to pass muster with the elite of the party (the superdelegates). But let's actually try to insert some logic into this stupidly illogical system. What the hell purpose do the superdelegates serve if they are expected to simply rubber stamp the choice of the pledged delegates? If that's their role, they aren't needed. No - obviously, they are there as a check/balance on the pledged delegates. They should be allowed and encouraged to ignore the choice of the pledged delegates and vote for the better candidate (Clinton). Obama-ites are being highly illogical when they talk about the superdelegates.
Obama-ites are being highly hypocritical when they say the hugely important state of Florida shouldn't count. I'm sure every last one of them was chanting "count the votes" in their sleep back in '01. Now what? Oh, now we ignore Florida because that works in our favor, of course. I find their attitude on Florida incredibly insulting.
Finally, Obama can't win the constituencies he will need to become President. He can't win big swing states. He can't win the female vote. He can't win the working class vote. As you point out LAS, he can't even make a little progress on these constituencies, even when the media are constantly telling everyone Obama has it locked up and "Clinton can't win" (the media's non-stop refrain these days). He is so weak - a guarantee the Democrats will lose again in November if he is the nominee.
Obama is a living example of why affirmative action has to go. Never has such a nobody with no qualifications, surrounded by so many America-hating commies, built of so little substance, with so many skeletons in his closet been so close to having the most important job in the world.
Maybe the Democrats should change their name to the Dumbocrats.
Thought you'd be interested in Le Monde's editorial today. The interesting part is the last two sentences:
"The record of George Bush's presidency is such that no one can be happy about the idea of the Democrats' inability to agree re-delivering the Republican Party to power. The United States and the entire world need a change in Washington."
http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2008/04/23/democrates-danger_1037381_3232.html
LOL. I'd vote for McCain just to piss off the morons at Le Monde. On the other hand, wouldn't it be funny to see their reaction to a Clinton presidency which would essentially leave our foreign policy unchanged....
Greg,
//He can't win big swing states. He can't win the female vote. He can't win the working class vote.//
Don't forget the senior citizen vote. He loses that one too.
His argument is that he has registered waves of new voters because they are excited about change. So did McGovern.
Greg
"La réponse est transparente : parce qu'"il" ne plaît pas à une fraction de l'électorat blanc, proche des démocrates sur les questions économiques et sociales, mais pas disposé à porter à la tête des Etats-Unis un métis d'origine américaine et kényane nommé Barack Hussein Obama."
Le Monde has more balls when it comes to expressing it's opinion on foreign elections than it does when expressing itself during French elections. Not one time do I remember reading anything about the fact that the Socialist was a woman and the strategy of Sarkozy may have been to attack that fact. When it comes to America of course we are all racists against the poor Kenyan immigrant Hussein.
In France a person of color couldn't get within light years of the French Presidency. They can't even get a seat in Parliament.
But as with China, that is what the French do best. Give lessons to the rest of the world while closing their own eyes to the reality of their country.
Post a Comment