Blog Nightline
05 May 2008 9:00 pm by Taylor Marsh
Guest post by Grey
With a ridiculously worded subject line, Thomas Edsall reports that the Clinton campaign might use “the nuclear option” in order to count Michigan and Florida.
With at least 50 percent of the Democratic Party’s 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee committed to Clinton, her backers could — when the committee meets at the end of this month — try to ram through a decision to seat the disputed 210-member Florida and 156-member Michigan delegations. Such a decision would give Clinton an estimated 55 or more delegates than Obama, according to Clinton campaign operatives. The Obama campaign has declined to give an estimate.
So, the DNC rules are acceptable only when they benefit Sen. Obama, and they get to be called “nuclear” when Sen. Clinton wants to use them? Let us all try to remember that DNC rule 20(c)(1) states that, If a “violation of timing” were to occur, then “the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent.” As it happens, it was the Rules and Bylaws Committee that decided to change the punishment from 50% to 100% so, if they were to rectify their very strange decision, I would find some poetic justice in that, wouldn’t you?
Craig Crawford wonders why Sen. Obama has “remained in attack mode” against Clinton in Indiana and North Carolina when that tactic didn’t work in Pennsylvania. I don’t mind negative ads, and they’re often effective, but Sen. Obama really should stop pretending he only goes negative after Clinton does because, one, it’s not true and, two, nobody cares about who goes first. If you’re going to do it, own it. Stop crying “uncle.”
Ben Smith covers a negative spot that is now running in Mississippi in which the Republicans link Travis Childers, a Democratic congressional candidate, to Sen. Obama. The main charge is that Childers lied about getting Obama’s endorsement, but it seems to me that the purpose of the ad is to try and hurt Childers with white voters.
Last Friday, Greta Van Susteren broke some news on the Ayers story and blogged about it after her show aired, but the media are not following up on it. SusanUnPC wants to know why, and so do I. Associations are legitimate issues, Sen. McCain continues to make this a question of judgment, and Sen. Obama is still clicking his heels to try and make this go away. It will not.
Andrew Sullivan suggests Sen. Clinton may now be running for Vice President. Don’t you love these men, trying to hand Clinton the keys to the Senate Majority Leader’s office, then of Gracie Mansion, and now of Number One Observatory Circle? If only she would drop out so that Obama could win! I don’t know what is on Sen. Clinton’s mind, but I doubt she’s running for VP, and am rather certain she’s running for the nomination because she believes she’d be a stronger candidate against Sen. McCain and dispatch him in the GE. I happen to think that’s true. Media types and bloggers alike would be far better served, and serve the rest of us far better, if they could only try to be a little more careful and a lot less patronizing and paternalistic. This is not a beauty run, and the media should let Clinton campaign without chiming in like a bunch of meddling, undisciplined children.
Chris Cillizza examines Clinton and Obama’s dueling gas-tax ads and concludes the debate is a matter of heart (Clinton) vs. head (Obama).
In Obama’s Chilly Spring, Howard Kurtz writes that “Obama aides, for their part, are somewhat taken aback” by recent media scrutiny, which is quite astonishing. What do they want, rose petals along the way? Toughen up, get some fortitude of whatever sort might apply, learn a lesson or two from the way Sen. Clinton has been dealing with the media (and the GOP) for the last 16 year and stop whining .
Mark Blumenthal takes a look at the demographics and argues that Obama’s slide in the polls is perhaps not due to lack of support, but to a more conservative African American voter turnout model.
Blumenthal’s theory leads to this article by Thomas F. Schaller, in which he argues that, had Sen. Clinton done better with African Americans and upped her percentage to 20, she would hold the lead in the popular vote even without including Michigan and Florida. He also says that she should have pursued black voters with more fervor even though, as Charlie Cook mantains in that same piece, “once Obama became perceived as a viable candidate by the African-American community — that is, after Iowa — Clinton never had a chance to get any significant black vote.” Both assertions seem to be true, which is what makes them practically mutually exclusive, but I do think that Sen. Clinton should make a more direct appeal to black voters, much the same way Sen. Obama is attempting to do with white, blue-collar voters.
What do you think?
