Delegate Bluster

This Clinton campaign scheme to add wooing Barack Obama's pledged delegates to vote for her is a pretty sleazy and absurd addition to their earlier "let's count the states that don't count" gambit. On the superdelegates front, I have more sympathy for their view since, as I've blogged before, there really are situations where I think it might make sense for the superdelegates to override the caucus/primary outcomes.

The problem for Clinton is that all of this is wishful thinking. Look at the Gallup national tracking poll above. If Obama is winning in terms of pledged delegates, and he's leading in the national polls, and he's leading in fundraising, and he's doing better than Clinton in head-to-head matchups with McCain it's simply inconceivable that superdelegates (much less Obama's delegates!) are going to swing to her banner. All signs point to movement in the opposite direction from elites and the rank-and-file alike. Given the national polling trends, you have to think that some states Clinton won on February 5 -- Massachusetts, New Jersey, and California in particular -- are now more sympathetic to Obama than they were two weeks ago, not less so.

The only scenario in which the superdelegates might decide the election is precisely the scenario in which they should come into play -- a situation where what "the will of the people" is is genuinely unclear. Right now, Obama is unambiguously winning. But Wisconsin votes today, then Texas and Ohio on March 4. What Clinton needs to do is get good results in those states. Everything else both campaigns are talking about right now is somewhere between bluster and a waste of time. This vision of her somehow winning the nomination without securing some solid primary wins is a bizarre fantasy.

Comments

Their trial balloon deflated, the Clinton campaign has backed away from poaching pledged delegates.

Posted by southpaw | February 19, 2008 1:50 PM

Bizarre fantasy? You mean you can't just go around declaring that states that didn't vote for you don't count?

It really ought to serve as a wake up call to Hillary's campaign that in virtually every state, she has opened with huge margins against Obama. And in virtually every state, those margins have evaporated as they get to see the candidates up close.

Seriously, is there any trend of consequence in this campaign right now that points toward Hillary?

Posted by SDinIA | February 19, 2008 1:52 PM

I like the Gallup Poll, but that one is yesterday's. Today's only shows a one point lead for Obama. Tommorow's, who knows?

Posted by The Other Alan | February 19, 2008 1:52 PM

"I think it might make sense for the superdelegates to override the caucus/primary outcomes."

Nonsense Matthew. Why should the nominee be chosen by a group of white males instead of the voters? As one Obama superdelegate explains

"One Obama superdelegate, a House member, had sharp criticism for the superdelegate racial and gender makeup, a reaction that reflects the sensitivities surrounding the issue.
"It's still the old guard, the white men. They always want to control the outcome," the superdelegate said. "But this time, they won't be able to do it.""

Posted by TLM | February 19, 2008 1:55 PM

The Clinton rules are in full effect I see. Yes an unsourced Politico story must be true!

Posted by Rob | February 19, 2008 1:56 PM

From the article:

But one neutral Democratic operative said to me: “If you are Hillary Clinton, you know you can’t get the nomination just with superdelegates without splitting the party. You have to go after the pledged delegates.”

Neutral or not, this is idiotic. Do you think people will take it any better if Clinton steals pledged delegates? I think that would be far worse. Superdelegates are at least part of the system. Pledged delegates are widely expected to stick to the candidate that voters selected them to vote for . I have said that I would always support Clinton if she won, even with superdelegates. But if she won in this way, I think I would be forced not to. Sometimes, you really do have to take care of your own house first.

Posted by mpowell | February 19, 2008 1:58 PM

You have "sympathy" for Clinton's position on the super delegates? What other position is there? The rules are they can vote however they wish. Those are the rules. It is telling that Obama supporters get so indignant over seating the delegations from Michigan and Florida - without any regard to the millions of voters who cast ballots in those primaries - yet suddenly care about democratic principles when it comes to the super delegates. If the DNC rules are to be strictly applied in the one instance then they should also be adhered to in the other. All this talk of what "should" be is irrelevant. As Plouffe is so fond of reminding us: These were the rules everyone agreed to at the beginning of the process.

Posted by Tim K | February 19, 2008 1:59 PM

New Gallup poll - Obama 46%, Clinton 45%

It's all about Wisconsin right now.

Posted by Craig | February 19, 2008 2:04 PM

You have "sympathy" for Clinton's position on the super delegates? What other position is there?

That if the will of the electorate seems clear, it would do the party massive political damage to overturn it, even in a case where it would be allowed to by rule.

We may have different values for "seems clear," but the premise here is not that hard to understand. It's not an argument about what could be done, it's an argument about what should be done.

Posted by Brad L | February 19, 2008 2:07 PM

The HRC campaign denies that it is trying to poach pledged delegates. At a minimum, you ought to note that.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 19, 2008 2:07 PM

f the DNC rules are to be strictly applied in the one instance then they should also be adhered to in the other. All this talk of what "should" be is irrelevant.

excellent. so, i guess this means we won't be hearing another word from you about the FL/MI delegates ?

Posted by cleek | February 19, 2008 2:09 PM

"If the DNC rules are to be strictly applied in the one instance then they should also be adhered to in the other."

You know, at first I gave the strawman an outside chance against your withering onslaught. But then jab, body blow, body blow, uppercut, right hook and BLAM! Down he went! You knocked him over real good.

Posted by Joe | February 19, 2008 2:10 PM

What makes it even sleazier, is that after floating the idea of poaching Obama's pledged delegates, HRC's campaign said that "It's now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions." Talk about fucking sleazy.

Also, Ickes suggested that HRC could hijack the credentials committee to seat the MI and FL delegates, despite having fewer delegates than Obama.

HRC has to dump theses asses from her campaign or she's going to quickly become a pariah in the party.

Posted by ben | February 19, 2008 2:11 PM

These were the rules everyone agreed to at the beginning of the process.

It is wrong to draw this equivalency. There is a difference b/w rules that you support and those that you don't. Everyone agreed to abide by the Michigan and Florida rules. If Clinton didn't like them, she had a chance to say so before she pledged to agree that they didn't count. Whether you agree with the DNC ruling there, the DNC has a democratically compelling interest in maintaining a primary schedule and they don't have many enforcement mechanisms.

But superdelegates are obviously an attempt by DNC insiders to maintain outsized control over the process. We tolerate their existence b/c they rarely come into play and when they do it should be for the good of the party. It is perfectly reasonable for Clinton to go after the superdelegates b/c they are part of the rules everyone agreed to, but it is also perfectly reasonable for Obama supporters to encourage them to do what is best for the party (while pointing out that they dislike their outsized influence) and also to complain if Clinton is buying them off by offering them special deals later on.

Posted by mpowell | February 19, 2008 2:11 PM

I'm honestly starting to wonder if there aren't some shenanigans going on with the regular pledged delegate count, let alone the superdelegates. Maryland's vote was a week ago, and they still haven't announced 18 of the pledged delegates.

Posted by Tel | February 19, 2008 2:11 PM

Tim K,

I'm not aware of anyone in the Obama campaign saying the rules should be changed wrt the superdelegates. They are merely giving their opinions about what factors they think the superdelegates should use in making their decisions.

Why is this so hard to understand? If you think the superdelegates should make their decision based on which candidate wone more pledged delegates, that's fine. If you think they should do it by consulting the astrological charts, that's fine too. In neither case are you saying that the rules should be changed.

Posted by Jim W | February 19, 2008 2:12 PM

"This vision of her somehow winning the nomination without securing some solid primary wins is a bizarre fantasy."

It's not a fantasy. It's laying the groundwork for Hillary to reduce the nomination to a game a chicken. Bill Clinton took this attitude during the Monica mess and Bush/Rove have adopted it for just about every facet of their administration. Raise the stakes as high as you can and wait for the other side to blink. It can be a very successful strategy right up until in turns into an apocalypse.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 19, 2008 2:14 PM

"It is telling that Obama supporters get so indignant over seating the delegations from Michigan and Florida - without any regard to the millions of voters who cast ballots in those primaries - yet suddenly care about democratic principles when it comes to the super delegates."

First off Michigan and Florida decided to not follow the rules and are being punished. Unless we want the primaries to be held earlier and earlier each year the parties need to set some rules for when primaries can be held. Interestingly enough if Michigan and Florida were holding their primaries within the rules they would have been hugely important states, just think if they were after Super Tuesday. Besides even with the delegates there Hillary would still be losing.

Secondly, the line of reasoning is that if you're a super delegate it's a bad idea to override the people who have voted. This is a way of convincing the super delegates to vote for your guy, not saying they don't count at all or trying to change the rules so they can't vote.

Posted by JordanT | February 19, 2008 2:15 PM

The superdelegates exist for one reason: to prevent the second coming of George McGovern. If Obama wins a solid majority of pledged delegates and there's no reason to believe Clinton would be more viable than Obama in November, the superdelegates aren't going to give Hillary the nomination. Anyone writing to the contrary is just noodling around, since it's too late to write the quadrennial "brokered convention?" speculation.

Having said all that, I'm getting concerned that the voters of Wisconsin are going to ensure this gets dragged out, the same as the ninnies in New Hampshire did.

Posted by ChuckE | February 19, 2008 2:19 PM

Yikes. Judging from today's Gallup, it looks like the Clinton attacks from Monday had a real effect. The question is if it's enough to swing Wisconsin. That happens, and the media will turn on Obama with full force, talking about the bursting of the Obama cult bubble. Even if he does pull it out and it's close, the Clintons will see the impact of going negative and drag this thing even deeper into the sewer than it already is. Obama needs to prove he can take a punch and fight back.

Posted by NHCt | February 19, 2008 2:24 PM

Dear All:

The PLEOs or so-called "super delegates" are not some new invention. They've been around since 1980. They were not part of some conspiracy by the Clinton's to steal the nomination. I didn't read or hear anything last year from the Obama campaign questioning the role of these delegates until it became clear they might present an impediment to his reaching for the brass ring.

I'm interested to hear some rationalizations for why the gap between Obama and Clinton narrowed 6 points in one day in the Gallup poll tracking poll? It's pretty significant given that it's a rolling average (Monday's results must have been absolutely dismal for Obama). Couldn't have something to do with the "War over Words" could it?

Posted by Tim K | February 19, 2008 2:26 PM

I do have some sympathy for Florida Democrats, mainly because I used to be one. Florida democrats did not move the primary up to a date before the deadline. The state legislature did, which was controlled by Republicans. Florida needs to throw the bums out of their legislature, except that the districts are so gerrymandered as to make it almost impossible.

That being said, if Clinton can run the table in the major contests left and take over the delegate lead, then she should be the nominee. If she can't, then she won't be.

Texas is going to break for Obama in two weeks, and then the gig will be up. And if Clinton decides to continue, the supers will break so heavily for Obama that it will all be over.

Posted by Curtis | February 19, 2008 2:28 PM

The superdelegates exist for one reason: to prevent the second coming of George McGovern. If Obama wins a solid majority of pledged delegates and there's no reason to believe Clinton would be more viable than Obama in November, the superdelegates aren't going to give Hillary the nomination.

I don't understand the point, ChuckE - McGovern HAD a solid majority of pledged delegates and had won the popular vote of the primaries. As Wikipedia puts it

"McGovern had amassed the most delegates to the convention by using a grass roots campaign that was powered by opposition to the Vietnam War."

Sound familiar?

It's not like McGovern hijacked the Democratic party in 1972 - he represented a very popular movement against a very unpopular war by those who wanted "change". Using your criteria, the super-delegates would have supported McGovern in 1072.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | February 19, 2008 2:33 PM

"Florida democrats did not move the primary up to a date before the deadline. The state legislature did, which was controlled by Republicans."

I'm pretty sure that the FL dems have also (so far) rejected the idea of a DNC-funded caucus, though.

SUSA now has the OH race at a 9 point difference.

Posted by ben | February 19, 2008 2:39 PM

Ethel-to-Tilly:

McGovern won the solid majority of pledged delegates under a different system.

Posted by Tim K | February 19, 2008 2:39 PM

"Even if he does pull it out and it's close, the Clintons will see the impact of going negative and drag this thing even deeper into the sewer than it already is"

Obama has had a great couple of weeks, and something negative was bound to happen. The problem for Hillary is that the Clintons have lots of very strong, very faithful supporters within the democratic party. She's not going away even if independent voters seem to like Obama more. Her election strategy is basically to secure the nomination no matter what happens and then count on the economy and Iraq to tank over the summer and fall so that even people who despise her are forced to vote for her over a less palatable alternative.

Posted by Helter | February 19, 2008 2:44 PM

Its weird that the Clinton camp gets these stories circulating...Like they want people to reaffirm that the Clinton's will do anything to win power. Might sway a few Democrats for 'ya but more Independents against. And Indies count twice.

I hear poached delegates taste like chicken BTW.

Posted by jvoe | February 19, 2008 2:48 PM

Gallup appears to be crediting Clinton's plagiarism attack on Obama for bringing Hillary Clinton back to a statistical tie. This makes sense to me, for two reasons.

First, plagiarism is a very serious charge for the young voters who form a core of Obama's support. It may be a bogus charge from the point of view that borrowing words is what politicians do, but college kids are used to thinking in terms of essays, and the distinction is probably largely lost on them.

Second, Obama is selling himself as a clean break from the "politics of the past," and bringing his link to another politician (Deval Patrick) may be too jarring for those of his supporters who really did see him as something novel. Sure, he's still twice the politician that Hillary Clinton is, but that's not how many of his supporters see him.

The Clinton camp have been trying for a long time to show that Obama is just another politician. Note that she's not trying to compare him to herself; she's just trying to burst the bubble for his most isolated fans. That's why it pays for her (and the most rabid anti-Obama bloggers) to go negative.

The challenge for Obama is to break the news to his legion of fans that, yes, he is just a politician, but that voting for him is still a net gain for democracy. To his credit, he's been doing this a bit in his talk about how the movement is about them not him. What he needs to do now is explain how a citizen-centered movement will work as process once he's president.

Posted by plum | February 19, 2008 2:49 PM

The elected by the public superdelegates will do what they have to to keep their own power. If the will of the people is clear, Obama wins the popular vote, the pledged delegate vote, the number of states, he will get the elected by the public superdelegate vote, since the public can easily UNelect them.

The bigger problem is the DNC superdelegate vote. These are party insiders and are not accountable to the public in such a direct fashion. If they go for the Clintons over the popular Obama, there will be huge problems for the party as a whole.

That, of course, just opens the door for a Bloomberg run, or a mass defection to McCain who is not that far from the Clintons in historic vote record, and the Dems will lose in November. One wonders if the party insiders realize that.

If the Clintons win all the popular categories, there will not be that problem. Those that support the Clintons will turn out enthusiastically and many of those that supported Obama will just stay home, with a few switching to McCain. One wonders if the party insiders realize that.

In short, one wonders what the party insiders realize about anything at all.

Posted by G Davis | February 19, 2008 2:51 PM

Atrios:
I wonder when Politico will give us the "scoop" that Clinton is planning to hire the hit man who killed Vince Foster to take out all of Obama's delegates.

Posted by Abby | February 19, 2008 2:52 PM

lorida democrats did not move the primary up to a date before the deadline. The state legislature did, which was controlled by Republicans.

Unless the Florida legislature has zero Democrats in it, that is a fiction. For instance, the Florida House voted unanimously to move the primaries.

Posted by Kevin | February 19, 2008 2:54 PM

yet suddenly care about democratic principles when it comes to the super delegates

"Democratic principles" require counting the results of an "election" with one candidate on the ballot, no campaigning, and that the governing authority said in advance wouldn't count? I guess you get your "democratic principles" from Vladimir Putin. On the other hand, there's nothing "undemocratic" about persuading superdelegates to use their discretion in a way that won't tear the party apart.

Posted by Scott Lemieux | February 19, 2008 3:04 PM

How about letting them fulfill their responsibility to exercise independent judgment as the process was intended, rather than be bullied by Obama zealots.

Posted by Tim K | February 19, 2008 3:09 PM

Tim K,
So you are suggesting that Obama zealots are the ones that are going to bullying the superdelegates into voting a particular way? It seems to me that the Clinton camp is going to be doing the bullying when they're behind on the pledged delegates. I'm not an "Obama zealot" by the way, but your thought process is cute.

Posted by Craig Greg | February 19, 2008 3:26 PM

I voted for my first Democrat today.

Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Keep hope alive, as Jesse Jackson might say.

Of course, my hope is that you @#$%tards poison each other's opinions and that McCain cruises to the presidency. So best to keep Hillary churning toward whatever her end game is. Maybe if she wins Wisconsin, she'll continue her shrill exposure of the Big O.

Hillary shrieking over the Big O. Indeed.

But the Big O seems to have the Big Mo, and he'll prob. win a close one.

Posted by Bluto | February 19, 2008 3:28 PM

no campaigning

Obama spent $1.3 million "not campaigning" in Florida.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | February 19, 2008 3:30 PM

Obama will beat Hillary and then beat Old Man McCain. And then will proceed to throw a huge party on inaugeration day where us cultists will boogie down.

So McCain dropped explosives on civilians of a foreign country, what's so heroic about that?

Posted by Peter K. | February 19, 2008 3:38 PM

How about letting them fulfill their responsibility to exercise independent judgment as the process was intended, rather than be bullied by Obama zealots.

Again, the superdelegates are free to vote however they please. With respect to this year's election, I think it would be wise for superdelegates, and in the best interests of the party, to affirm the pledged delegate leader (whoever that is). I believe that to do otherwise would be to both nominate a demonstrably weaker candidate and threaten the Democratic coalition.

This is a principled argument; it's not bullying. If the superdelegates, in their independent judgment, choose to take another path, so be it.

Posted by southpaw | February 19, 2008 3:39 PM

So McCain dropped explosives on civilians of a foreign country, what's so heroic about that?

Hey, it was only napalm and they were only Vietnamese peasants. So he's a hero.

Posted by Jim W | February 19, 2008 3:48 PM

What happens on the second ballot? Is the second ballot a free-for-all where any delegate, pledged or super, can change their vote? How does it work if neither candidate can secure enough delegates on the first ballot?

Posted by Just Karl | February 19, 2008 3:53 PM

That link you provide isn't very sourced very well. It also doesn't say that Obama was not not using the funds to campaign. Can you track down the source and a more detailed description of the claims, rather than just recirculating a TL/MyDD smear?

Posted by ben | February 19, 2008 3:54 PM

Honestly, delegates matter, but the campaign itself matters much more. A campaign is the biggest enterprise for any candidate and its proper functioning is a good indicator as to how they will govern as an executive. Presidential campaigns test a candidate's ability to think strategically, and to have a bold vision necessary not only to comprehend big issues, but to galvanize the public to take political action for themselves, to be good citizens, to be politically aware, and to care about America's position in the world. Campaigns also test a candidate's ability to think tactically and meticulously about the ins-and-outs of day-to-day operations and the general management of a very complex organization. Going into a campaign, any candidate can have a game plan; but only the very best are able to adjust to change. Over the past several months, Obama's campaign skillfully dealt with controversy, mud-slinging, funding and donation troubles, and they even tapped—but have yet to totally unleash—the powerful democratic constituents living in the Midwest and much of the South. Comparatively, the Clinton campaign made unwise management appointments, were not prepared for long-term funding problems, not prepared for caucuses, and most important, they were not prepared for a tough alternative. Overall, Obama has proven himself to be the most competent executive thus far.

Posted by Obama's illegitimate child | February 19, 2008 3:56 PM

The last comment is directed towards ASV.

Posted by ben | February 19, 2008 3:56 PM

"Obama spent $1.3 million "not campaigning" in Florida."

Again this is false and typical Hillary campaigning. He bought regional ads and Florida was included for that region, based on how advertising works he couldn't have them not run in Florida. He didn't go visit, build a ground organization or do any of the other things that have been the key to his success. How many times is this line going to be repeated, until the media accepts the parrot talking point as true?

Posted by JordanT | February 19, 2008 3:58 PM

Sounds like yet more bad reporting going on from Politico on Clinton campaign's alleged super-delegate pursuit. See http://www.mydd.com/

Wish Molly Ivins was here to shed light and wit on the bizarro nature of the Texas delegate-selection process. Haven't read a coherent MSM account of how it's supposed to work. Too much real work, no doubt. So much easier to hold forth, speculate, and make stuff up.

Posted by Alla | February 19, 2008 4:01 PM

Re "The only scenario in which the superdelegates might decide the election is precisely the scenario in which they should come into play -- a situation where what "the will of the people" is is genuinely unclear "
---------------
Or until billionaire patrons of the Democratic Party decide to buy them off.

I mean , shit, $500,000 is a fortune to most of these delegates. So you bribe 100 Superdelegates for $50 Million. Chump change.

The billionaires are just waiting to determine HOW many they have to buy.

WHY do you think they created "unpledged", nonelected delegates in the first place?

Posted by Don Williams | February 19, 2008 4:07 PM

ben: It's actually less insidious than even that. From here, we see that the $1.3 million simply counts any spending with a company based in FL, regardless of whether the money was spent in Florida.

Posted by Milind | February 19, 2008 4:09 PM

Thanks, Milind. Apparently that diary was removed from Rec list on MyDD for a while because it embarassed Jerome Armstrong.

Posted by ben | February 19, 2008 4:15 PM

southpaw:

If this is such a principled argument then why don't you call for Senator Edward M. Kennedy to declare he will respect the wishes of the people of the state that has elected him nine times.

Posted by Tim K | February 19, 2008 4:24 PM

Before I was abandoned as a child, my Mother told me it was my destiny to be subservient to women. It's the reason I chose to work in the women's show department at Saks. When it comes to political candidates there's no debate: Hillary's the One. She's been vetted, tested, and through the mill. She'll be ready to lead on Day One!

Posted by Tim K | February 19, 2008 4:26 PM

Yes, a little paranoia about billionaires is just what the thread needed.

Posted by AlanC9 | February 19, 2008 4:28 PM

Nothing I love more than womens' shoes and a bit of ether.

Posted by Tim K | February 19, 2008 4:31 PM

Yikes. Judging from today's Gallup, it looks like the Clinton attacks from Monday had a real effect.

Perhaps the attacks had a minor effect but the results from last Friday, when it looks like HRC had a terrible day, are no longer factored. Hard to say.

I'm interested to hear some rationalizations for why the gap between Obama and Clinton narrowed 6 points in one day in the Gallup poll tracking poll? It's pretty significant given that it's a rolling average (Monday's results must have been absolutely dismal for Obama).

See the above "rationalization." Considering that Gallup itself says that "It is unclear which, if any, of these factors could be responsible for changes in the candidates' standing" I think calling the shift "pretty significant" is just spin / wishful thinking.

Posted by blymlvy | February 19, 2008 4:32 PM

First, people were responding to my ad hominem attacks with reasoned arguments. Now, people are impersonating me. How rude.

Posted by Tim K | February 19, 2008 4:33 PM

southpaw:

If this is such a principled argument then why don't you call for Senator Edward M. Kennedy to declare he will respect the wishes of the people of the state that has elected him nine times.

By my argument, if Senator Clinton holds a lead in pledged delegates at the convention, Senator Kennedy should vote for her. So should every other superdelegate.

One might plausibly argue that each superdelegate should vote the wishes of his/her consitutency (i.e. Massachusetts for Kennedy, Los Angeles for Villaraigosa). That gets problematic, however, because some superdelegates don't have an identifiable consituency anymore (e.g. Al Gore). That's why I don't make that argument. In some world where I was making that argument, however, you would be right that I should apply it to Senator Kennedy.

Posted by southpaw | February 19, 2008 4:37 PM

Dumbass.

Never thought of doing any serious vetting to your stories before blogging about them?

Here's directly from the Clinton campaign (if you care about accuracy in your reporting, as opposed to just repeating whatever comes out of the Politico)

"We have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama."

Posted by volum | February 19, 2008 4:38 PM

They say Barack has no experience in public service and does not offer solutions. Here are a list of some of Barack Obama's accomplishments: During first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced 233 regarding healthcare reform, 125 on poverty and public assistance, 112 crime fighting bills, 97 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, 15 gun control, 6 veterans affairs and many others. His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included: **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law), **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law), **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law), **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more. In all Barack Obama has Over 20 Years of Public Service and has offered many solutions on health care, global warming, the Iraq War, college tuition grant to students, education reform, the re-building of our infrastructure and much more.

Just because the Clintons repeat over and over again that Barack lack's experience does not make it so.

And the Words Duval used in his prior speech, WERE NOT HIS WORDS EITHER, they are everyone's words used in most political speeches today!

Posted by Angellight | February 19, 2008 4:38 PM

And the Words Duval used in his prior speech, WERE NOT HIS WORDS EITHER, they are everyone's words used in most political speeches today!

"immature poets imitate; mature poets steal"
--T.S. Eliot

From what I can gather, Hillary's campaign themes have been A) the Presidency is my Due, and when that failed B) look he's not that great, in fact he's just as bad as I am. Very inspiring.

Posted by Peter K. | February 19, 2008 4:50 PM

The first part of the bizarro Texas process is underway. I cast a primary ballot, and so too did lots of people, at least here in north Texas. You could vote in the Republican or Democratic primary; everybody who got themselves onto the ballot was still there. What happens on the 4th is a bit obscure--the votes will be tabulated state wide and then, as I gather from the Statre Democratic party, there will be caucuses to select delegates. Perhaps Grand Moff Texan can explain further.

I've not seen or heard a Clinton advertisement; Obama has begun spending some radio money (sorry I don't watch the local news) and I have seen Obama teeshirts (I teach at a College).

I don't think the Clinton people, if they want to win, should rest up too much.

Posted by djeri | February 19, 2008 5:12 PM

The Clinton juggernaut gets mired deeper and deeper in its own slime---the politics of personal destruction the Clintons perfected is becoming the politics of personal desperation. As Charles Armstrong will note on Kos, Scorpio Hillary keeps stinging herself.

Posted by daveinboca | February 19, 2008 5:19 PM

For the record, there is actually a pattern of phrases shared between Obama and Deval Patrick, through the linguistic agency of Axelrod. (See Jake Tapper.) This would be a sign of plagiarism if political speeches were held to the same standard as theses, but of course, they're not.

However, the Clinton camp's interpretation (and Tapper's interpretation, as far as I can tell) strikes me as odd. Obama critics are invested in the idea that the Obama Horde worships him as a messiah figure. While some of that's probably taking place among some of the more impressionable supporters (and which candidate doesn't attract impressionable supporters?), I haven't heard Obama say that himself. In fact, he places the core of the movement in the people themselves. And then, there's always Michelle to ground him. So this image of Obama as a secret authoritarian is a construct designed to score political points.

Posted by plum | February 19, 2008 5:24 PM

What I wanted to say was that learning that Obama and Patrick were ideological soulmates actually is a positive for me. It's actually something of a relief to know that Obama did not singlehandedly spur a movement as much as been part of a movement himself. Because that movement has ideological roots in Saul Alinsky's notions of community organizing and shows that a good deal of theoretical grounding has gone into Obama's campaign.

What kind of theoretical forethought has gone into Clinton's campaign? None that I can see apart from Mark Penn's belief that you campaign based on what the polls are saying.

While she has jumped from slogan to slogan, and aped both Edwards' and Obama's rhetoric, Obama has been far more consistent in his messaging. (OK, he's incorporated a lot of Edwards' policies, but his core message has been inconsistent.)

Posted by plum | February 19, 2008 5:33 PM

I swear, reactions get bigger and bigger over less and less.

A functionary 99.99% of us couldn't place within either campaign gets asked "if this thing gets pretty close at the end, do you think all kinds of wild stuff is likely to happen," answers "um...probably" and it's immediate proof, rock-solid, 100%-pure no doubt this time smoking gun in her hand proof that the Clinton campaign is eeeevil.

Meanwhile, a tracking poll rolls off an outlier and oh-my-gosh the accusations are working! Negative attacks a-g-go!

Sheesh.

Posted by Andrew | February 19, 2008 5:43 PM

Andrew -- Thanks for that. Must remember to take deep breaths.

Posted by plum | February 19, 2008 5:53 PM

A functionary 99.99% of us couldn't place within either campaign gets asked "if this thing gets pretty close at the end, do you think all kinds of wild stuff is likely to happen," answers "um...probably" and it's immediate proof, rock-solid, 100%-pure no doubt this time smoking gun in her hand proof that the Clinton campaign is eeeevil.

I don't think it's that big a deal, but this gloss is ridiculous.

Senior staff in a professional political campaign are well aware of their candidate's media strategy; professionals do not just take flyers on potential campaig policies because a jackass journalist calls the . . . if they do, they get fired (and the sort of people who do are kept from talking to the media).

I'm pretty sure this was a trial balloon. It got an extremely hostile reception, and so it was withdrawn. No big deal. But it is important to react to stories like this because their purpose is to measure reaction . . . fwiw.

Posted by southpaw | February 19, 2008 6:25 PM

Hillary must prevail. I may jump off a bridge if she doesn't.

Posted by Tim K | February 19, 2008 8:24 PM