Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Hillary Clinton Surrogates Lose It

Watching CNN's coverage of the North Carolina and Indiana primaries last night, I was struck by the performance of Clinton's supporters. They as a group (three of them through the night versus the one Barack Obama surrogate). I can't remember who exactly all three of them were at this point but they made quite a team. First, Paul Begala picks a fight with undeclared super-delegate and member of the rules committtee, Donna Brazile. Then Begala disappears into the ether and the next guy starts complaining about media bias on CNN. He goes after the most objective guy on the set, John King. Never mind that Clinton surrogates got about three times the air time that Jamal Simmons, the lone Obama supporter got. Apparently King's stating of the facts is biased. Apparently, Barack Obama is solely responsible for Florida and Michigan's disenfranchisement. No it wasn't the governors and senators in FL and MI trying to gain influence, it was those nasty Obama supporters. Maybe you'd get a little more sympathy if you stopped picking with members of the committee charged to solve the problem! Then, the Clinton team starts spinning the "Indiana is the tie-breaker" bit. Never mind your own prediction that "North Carolina would be a game changer." Or that you won Indiana by the skin of your teeth. What matters is the over-confidence all candidates show when campaigning in a jurisdiction where their hopes are bleak. Ask the Green Party how many times they've heard that they're on the cusp of a breakthrough. All in all a terrible performance by Clinton surrogates on a bad night for Clinton. According to the Green papers if you add up the delgates from Pennsylvania, Guam, Indiana and North Carolina (the last four contests), you get a net of a one delegate gain for Hillary Clinton. That's including super delegates, a total of 358 total delegates. In other words, Clinton is done. She cannot possibly catch Obama. Even if you give her the results as in from Florida (roughly a 40 delegate edge) and take the Michigan results as the forty percent "uncommitted" for Obama (netting a 17 delegate edge), she is still almost 100 delegates behind with just over 500 delegates remaining. With the PR rules, she's done.


Anonymous said...

ok first of all brazile is not undeclared if you would of listen she did say who she was supporting, hussein obama,
second 2 of the panel where republican stradegists, and the other beside brazile was also a obama supporter...with paul bagala in california on video...bagala kept his cool, and said his opinion, brazile retaliated as all obama supporters do, with black this and black that, bagala kept his profesionalism and did not comment on such a childish response. if you want to blog, at least tell the truth
My surprise is that a liberals of canada whould support someone who is a left liberal in america, and obama is just that, (its all rich folks fault, especially white folks,) and a left liberal in america is diferent than here, that means that in your support of barrack hussein obama, (and that is his full name by the way,) would equal your support of jack layton's left n.d.p.....and that is strange.... he cant win the novemeber election, but at least the democrats nominated a black man?

Alan said...

Talk about a disconnect from reality last night on CNN. That Clinton supporter, still obsessing over Michigan and Florida like a pedophile over a naked kid, actually blames Obama for "vetoing" the decision to hold revotes in Florida and Michigan. Never mind that it was the state parties and governors of those two states that decided to break the rules, and Obama simply abiding by those rules.

What did Clinton's people expect him to do? Be a so-called populist and champion those disenfranchised voters by stuping to the same rule breaking tactics that the GOP used in 2000? Here's the idea solution: just split the delegates from those states up 50/50. Clinton already won at least 50% in those states before, what difference would it make?

Clinton may win WV next week and Kentucky and Puerto Rico. But those will be hollow victories and it's only a matter of time before Obama becomes the nominee.

WesternGrit said...

Anon: You certainly have a poor understanding of global politics. Both American parties are further right than the Canadian Liberals. The Democrats are probably similar to what the old Canadian PCs were. Barack (call him Saddam, if you want, we couldn't care less) Obama is like a progressive in his values - but no-where near the leftist NDP here... Obama is a social progressive, but still a fiscal conservative. This is similar to the Liberal Party of Canada, or the old Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. If he wins (when he wins), he will move the Democrats to the left for sure, but not "into the left" in world terms. He will still be part of the capitalist American equation - of which we are all happily a part. He would never move America even as far left as Western European conservatives.

The world political spectrum is a very long and wide scale... with many stops along the way...

All views expressed in this blog are those of the author and the author alone. They do not represent the views of any organization, regardless of the author's involvement in any organizations.

All comments are the views of the individual writer. The administrator reserves the right to remove commentary which is offensive.

The author is not responsible for nor does he support any of the advertisements displayed on the page