Another Boneheaded Move from Obama
21 March 2008 12:00 pm by Taylor Marsh
Seriously, offering yourself up as a laughing stock to Fox “News.”
Senator Obama’s campaign is in damage control and shooting so wildly that the
candidate is hitting himself in the foot. This is more evidence of the Not Ready for Prime Time Players over at camp
Obama. Even they’re posting Fox videos, though they miss the irony that the reason networks are talking about Obama non-stop is because he’s the candidate who just keeps on giving… to Republicans. You think Fox is going to sidestep that gift? Wake up and see a preview of coming Obama attractions.
Oh, and by the way, when you’re candidate is also becoming a 24-hour spectacle,
with negative press abounding, it’s going to take more than an endorsement from
Bill “Turn toward Obama and smile” Richardson…. Hey, and about that, I’ve got a question for Mr. Richardson.
I was thinking about Kerry, Kennedy, but also Richardson this morning, when
an email came in on the same subject. If superdelegates like these three guys
can endorse Obama, in direct opposition of the people of the states they are
supposed to represent, what’s the big deal about other superdelegates using
their judgment to endorse Clinton? There’s absolutely no reason whatsoever any
superdelegate needs to be bound by already pledged delegates through primaries
and caucuses if some of the Democratic elite are going to snub voters in their
own state who prefer Clinton.
And with all this time before Pennsylvania, what I’ve been waiting for has finally
happened. It’s one of the reasons that Mark Halperin wrote his post this morning
as well. The post I wrote yesterday on “Hillary’s Chances” still applies,
with “the math” exclusively on Obama’s side. But Vandehei and Mike
Allen strip away the superdelegate prerogatives, which they feel is backed up since Clinton doesn’t have the popular vote either. So add their voices to
what is going to start being pushed by the Obama team, with a lot of help from their big blogs, aided by Keith “He’s No Edward R. Murrow” Olbermann. (Oh, and speaking of Keith Obamaman, as some are calling him now, can’t wait to see him do a requisite half-hour on Clinton’s passport info being breached, with breathless huffing and puffing provided like last night, all in the name of fairness! When pigs fly.)
One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic
presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.
… Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote —
which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use
that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for
victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that,
even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone
else. … ..
What we’re dealing with now is impatience. Journalist prodding the primary to an end. Everyone needs to hold on because neither candidate will get to the nomination promise land for a while, with only superdelegates left to decide the race.
It’s what I wrote about last night, minus the “no chance of winning,”
which goes to my question to Richardson. Why shouldn’t superdelegates use their
judgment, given that Obama is already being vilified for his association with
Rev. Wright, with his poll numbers crashing?
Obama’s team want the nomination and feel they’ve won it, even if the race hasn’t been called, because they don’t believe that Clinton can catch them. Other Democrats are more concerned with winning
in November. Those are two different goals. Obama’s team and supporters know
he’s got the “math.” Democrats concerned about the cumulative effect
of Wright are starting to believe it will be something Obama simply cannot withstand
against John McCain.
Don’t look now, but Democrats are in trouble, especially with Obama at the top, which is where we stand today. Superdelegates can sense the general election dangers of an Obama candidacy, but at the same time can also imagine the furor if they decide against him. News flash folks: What makes anyone think Clinton supporters will be any less outraged? Like I said, all signs point to trouble.
First, we screened poll respondents to find those who were aware that Obama’s pastor was in the news. A startling 82% knew about Obama’s speech, and about the controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Of those who knew about the controversy and the speech, we asked, “Taking all this into account, are you more or less likely to support Obama for president?” Less likely (52%)
More likely (19%)
About the same (27%)
No opinion (2%)
