Hillary Clinton would be a great president, really, but I humbly suggest that perhaps it would have been better if she hadn't won Pennsylvania and we could move on. Her win means another long slog of negatives and slightly below the belt shots from surrogates and dredging up of comments that were either unfortunate given the actual facts or inconvenient in a wider audience.
Why'd Hillary win? Not enough African-Americans? Too little income? Not enough education? Bloom off the rose?
Here's why, Obama has been leaking oil for months now. He had so much message discipline early on, he was all Hope and Sunrises and Change and Goodness. Then his people started getting in the way. "Best case scenario" and Hillary Clinton as a "Monster".
And then they went negative in commercials. Hillary can do this because her supporters already expect it. They'd prefer she stayed positive, but will accept it if she has to go negative. The people attracted to Obama are all about hope and change and have their idealism threatened when it appears Obama is running a politics as usual campaign.
So, Obama, why even do any of that seeing as even your internals don't have you winning Pennsylvania? I don't get it. They need to get everyone on board, tell them Hope and Change are the only words you can say, and then just drive on to Denver. He cannot afford to get into any of this with Clinton.
Am I wrong?
remaining primary predictions after the jump FWIW
Upcoming Primaries and my fearless predictions (in parentheses):
May 3: Guam (really?)
May 6: Indiana (leaning Clinton) and North Carolina (Obama)
May 13: West Virginia (Clinton)
May 20: Kentucky (Clinton) and Oregon (Obama)
June 1: Puerto Rico (why are we letting foreigners vote?)
June 3: Montana and South Dakota (doesn't really matter)
Comments (10)
Keep in mind that BHO has not overtaken in Hillary in any state she led other than Iowa, if i am not mistaken.
But I don't know why neither has been able to seal the deal. BHO shouldn't have won 11 in a row thats for damn sure and I think that he isn't the hope candidate anymore.
Last night was the worst possible scenario for the party. BHO wins, Hillary is done to everyone but herself and who will get checks from her. She wins by 15-20% she can put nails in Obama's coffin (because Democrats love effed up logic where you can not be winning and still win) and start to close the deal but nothing changes after tonight. She gets six delegates soon to be outweighed by an Obama NC victory (probably a landslide) and this *hitstorm continues.
Why the hell do we have delegates anyway? So people can exhibit their stupid hats? (With apologies to Angela Trigg, who we all agree is awesome).
Because we need to have a convention to formalize our party and the convention couldn't be run WITHOUT delegates in some form. And if we are going to formalize what our party is, better have delegates do the most obvious task of showing what our party is; appointing the nominee.
Im fine with it even though it hearkens back to yesteryear.
I will say this though, angela pwns and the results were good because i got two bar tabs picked up by South Fulton Diva after I won a bet on the results.
HOLLA!
Seems to me the best approach Obama can take from here out is to act like the presumptive nominee. Ignore Clinton. No more debates, no more rising to her attacks. Save your counter-punches for McCain.
Just let her campaign continue to devolve into the debt-ridden puddle of negativity it has begun to show itself to be.
As for Hillary, she needs to decide what she wants to do with her future. Soon. There's about a 95% chance she is currently on a path that leads to an ugly dead end. Would she like to finish with enough political capital remaining to become majority leader in the Senate, or governor of New York, or even a possible Supreme Court nominee? Or would she like to continue a scorched earth campaign that will leave her a pariah within her own party?
By the numbers last night sealed the deal for Obama. Clinton will need to win with over 72% for the remaining races to overtake the pledged delegate lead. That just isn't going to happen.
I too want Obama to pivot back to his earlier message. But understand that he must respond to her kitchen sink tactics.
I don't think Clinton will spend much time in NC and will focus her negative ads in IN. This is the perfect opportunity for Obama to get back on message.
I'll be heading over to Michigan City, Indiana to canvass and phone for Obama this weekend. I'll poat about it over at Tondees when I get back.
Yeah, but it doesn't reflect the popular vote (in many instances). It only works if there are enough delegates in whatever district you are talking about to roughly equal the percentages of the candidates. If you have 2 delegates in the district, or 3 or even 4, it produces an inequitable result. I know what you are going to say, so's the electoral college, but that requires an amendment to the constitution.
I love the convention, though I won't be attending this year, and I am fine with it as a symbolic offering, but really, super-delegates are a bad idea.
Also C.T. Martin as an elected delegate? I don't think that's necessary. If he wants to go to Denver to hobnob and feel important, he doesn't have to be a delegate. I really think the delegates are there as a reward to the grassroots engines of the party, as well as fundraisers, etc, and those that are in the background making it work. Electing electeds? Seems excessive.
Sure, responding to the kitchen sink is fine, but throwing the kitchen sink back? That ain't cool.
Immediately reject the remark with the same answer every time "politics as usual, hog likes it" etc. Then calm the herd. Make sure all your people understand your approach and can ignore so your surrogates and advisers and other pseudo-intellectuals who want to impress stay off the air and away from microphones.
if y'all haven't read David Sirota's follow-up on the Clinton/Obama matchup and racial politics, it's pretty darn cool - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/pennsylvania-the-persiste_b_98170.html
I'd rather hear about hope and sunrises than a 10 point plan for strengthening the middle class or the American health choices plan, whatever that is. Tell me about how your plan is better than my plan all you like, but it still doesn't tell me why I should take money that I've earned and give it to someone who hasn't earned it. Until you can answer the latter question, you're wasting your breath boring everyone with policy speak. Also, if you're being personally attacked, you have to strike back to avoid getting swiftboated.