Clinton campaign urging undecided superdelegates to hold off from making commitments. It seems they've finally realized that as long as Clinton's in the middle of a massive primary losing streak, that only in fantasy-land are superdelegates going to break in her direction.
« Quality | Main | Question of the Day »
Ooops!
27 Feb 2008 11:26 am
Comments (12)
This is why reporting on the superdelegates has always been silly. It is perfectly appropriate for party officials to endorse candidates and work for their election. That is what party officials do.
But an endorsement does not mean that they are locked into a particular vote at the convention. The superdelegates are going to back the winner. They were always going to back the winner, and the only time they wouldn't is if there were serious question as to who the winner was.
It is tough to imagine a race being closer than it was just three weeks ago on Super Tuesday, and even now, there is no question who the winner is. Hopefully, this will put to bed for future cycles all the endless speculation. But that is probably hoping too much.
Can we finally send Hillary off to Imaginationland?
Maybe there, in deepest recesses of her mind, she'll learn that just because something is imaginary, like her 35 years of experience, doesn't mean it isn't real.
How many delegates does Fantasyland have?
How many delegates does Fantasyland have?
Two. Ricardo Montalban and Tattoo.
Fantasyland doesn't count.
Geez Matt, at least Sullivan makes some sense, some times. I can't wait to see your infatuation for Obama subside. Andrew'll be telling the world how much of an idiot he was back then when he supported Obama (just like he did with his support for the Iraq war and his defense of Apartheid), and you'll be riding his coattails with all that authenticity that characterizes your pro-Obama posts.
The Clinton campaign should just shut up about these process issues until such time as the pledged delegate count is close enough that it's worth anybody's time to think about superdelegates or seating Florida and Michigan. Every time they bring these matters up lately just reinforces the fact that they will say and do anything to try to win elections which has a lot to do with why they are losing primary after primary by 20+ points.
Yes, by golly -- we're in a campaign and campaigns try to shift around in response to reality. imagine that! I wish Matt and Josh and everyone would stop giving us these little tidbits all the time. It's tiresome.
Sorry, Mary. It's fine to be able to adapt to new realities, but this just goes to show -- again -- that Hillary's campaign has no core principles. In the same way that each day her campaign rolls out a new persona for Hillary to don, this smacks of desperation and say-anything politics.
She's lost the last eleven contests and her once impregnable lead in the remaining ones has nearly vanished. She needs to face reality, get behind the likely nominee and stop trying to throw banana peels in his way. This is just one more tactic that illustrates what every critic has said about the Clintons for the last 16 years.
Though of course when it was Obama urging super delegates to hold back on declaring, well just what was that?
And when he began to take the lead and switched to his newly minted "rule of follow the people" bs was that his "say anything to get elected" self peeking out?
There really is only one overarching reason to utterly oppose Obama and that is the insufferable smugness he produces in his acolytes.
The run up to Obama is no less offensive and certainly as dangerous as the run up to Iraq.
And for such a "progressive" candidate Obama sure does enjoy deploying the BushCheney rhetorical frauds, though rather than calling his opponents unAmerican Obama calls them racists.
Wow JaimieT, unhinged much? Smugness is calling your opponent naive all the time because they only like pretty speeches and believe only in "hope" and that not falling for that makes you the hard-headed realist.
"though rather than calling his opponents unAmerican Obama calls them racists."
When has he actually used the word "racist"?
The ironic thing about calling people who back Obama cultists is that Clinton supporters were backing a fantasy based on campaign talking points, especially 35 years of experience, but also being a fighter, being ready on day one, etc. The 35 years argument was so bad I laughed the first time I heard it. Being a fighter only made sense in the way that a boxer who gets knocked out every match is a fighter. Hell, Ralph Nader is a fighter by that standard because he runs for president a lot. The being ready on day one idea was just odd and seems to be untrue, considering her problems managing personnel and picking good people. You get the idea that Clinton supporters think they're supporting Chris Dodd. The arguments made for her candidacy never made much sense, which is why she has been losing support.
Comments closed March 12, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
sorry to be off-topic, but I have a question for Matt. When you were a staffer in Schumer's office did he ever explain why he was on the Board of the rightwing FDD? He finally resigned on Friday of last week, now that FDD is running attack ads against Dems, but didn't Bush's visit in 2006 put him off his oats?
why was the head of the DSCC part of a neocon front group?
Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | February 27, 2008 11:38 AM