If I were the Obama campaign, I'd stick to the positive side of things. Voters are fine with the fact that Clinton may have a leg up on Obama as far as understanding policy goes. Going negative, and in a way that may be less than accurate, doesn't seem like the best way to advance the Obama message of chjange.
Sen. Clinton could still win this thing. Think about it: If Clinton performs well in Texas, beats Obama in Ohio, and somehow manages to go into the spring down only a few delegates, she could make the arguement that, in order to break a possible delegate impasse, the DNC should count Florida and Michigan. Am I the only one whose thought of this, or is the Clinton campaign campaigning with just that in mind: perform well in Texas and Ohio, and seat the Michigan and Florida delagtes. Victory: Clinton.
So what do we do with Michigan and Florida? Floridians and Michiganians(wha?) should be able to be confident in the Democratic primary system. I'm with Sen Clinton on this one: their votes should count. My solution: give the states two weeks notice and do it again, and that suggestion should come from Obama. The Clinton campaign may make a fuss, but they certainly couldn't argue with the results of a re-vote. And hey, they might actually win the two states again. They did before.
How important are endorsements? Right now: Very. Especially for Obama. For a candidate whose lack of experience is a large issue, the endorsements of men like Sens. Kerry and Kennedy is an incredible help. In a race this tight, and this late in the game, an endorsement by a Democratic heavyweight would make quite the difference. So is Edwards going to endorse someone, or what? Does it even matter anymore? I fear the guy may be inactioning his way into irrelevancy. Bill Richardson, however, may make a move some time soon.
With all this Texas and Ohio excitement, I wonder how fellow big state, and plentiful delegate Pennsylvania is feeling?
“Shame on you, Barack Obama,” Clinton said angrily when talking to reportersSen. Clinton may finally be figuring out how to beat Sen. Obama: question the integrity of his message, and the methods of his campaign, while praising him at opportune moments. So is that how you beat Barack Obama?
after a rally in a technical college gym here. “It is time you ran a campaign
consistent with your messages in public. That’s what I expect from you,” she
said, calling on Obama to repudiate and stop the mailings, which she waved
demonstratively.
Sen. Clinton could still win this thing. Think about it: If Clinton performs well in Texas, beats Obama in Ohio, and somehow manages to go into the spring down only a few delegates, she could make the arguement that, in order to break a possible delegate impasse, the DNC should count Florida and Michigan. Am I the only one whose thought of this, or is the Clinton campaign campaigning with just that in mind: perform well in Texas and Ohio, and seat the Michigan and Florida delagtes. Victory: Clinton.
So what do we do with Michigan and Florida? Floridians and Michiganians(wha?) should be able to be confident in the Democratic primary system. I'm with Sen Clinton on this one: their votes should count. My solution: give the states two weeks notice and do it again, and that suggestion should come from Obama. The Clinton campaign may make a fuss, but they certainly couldn't argue with the results of a re-vote. And hey, they might actually win the two states again. They did before.
How important are endorsements? Right now: Very. Especially for Obama. For a candidate whose lack of experience is a large issue, the endorsements of men like Sens. Kerry and Kennedy is an incredible help. In a race this tight, and this late in the game, an endorsement by a Democratic heavyweight would make quite the difference. So is Edwards going to endorse someone, or what? Does it even matter anymore? I fear the guy may be inactioning his way into irrelevancy. Bill Richardson, however, may make a move some time soon.
With all this Texas and Ohio excitement, I wonder how fellow big state, and plentiful delegate Pennsylvania is feeling?
5 Comments:
Ok, first off, I would be fine with seating Michigan's and Florida's delegates, but the DNC already ruled on this. It's done for this election cycle or at least it should be. If the DNC is going to have rules, as asinine as they may be, they should stick to them.
Secondly, it's not as if Clinton has some high-minded moral principle behind her wanting those delegates seated. She promised the party she wouldn't campaign there and she did anyway. The other candidates removed their names from the ballots and she still lost to "uncommitted" in a few areas of those states. Saying, "they might actually win the two states again. They did before." is just stupid. THEY WERE RUNNING UNOPPOSED.
Finally, people are seeing through Hillary's newest cheap tactics. Nearly every comment that I've seen on YouTube and First Read in regards to the "Shame on you, Barack Obama" attack have been negative toward her. The attack is simply ludicrous. "Democrats don't attack each other on Universal Health Care" <-- Really? cause I remember a TV ad from Hillary in Wisconsin about two weeks ago attacking his health care plan. She might have a chance at this if it wasn't so painfully clear that she's a desperate hypocrit. His campaign mailings weren't even factually incorrect. Plus, THEY HAVE BEEN OUT FOR OVER A MONTH. Wanna take a guess as to why she's attacking them now? It's not the virtue of her positions, that's for sure. It's good old fashioned political desperation.
I, for one, relish the idea of her trying to attack Obama on campaign tactics. I think it should be downright hilarious to watch her try to win that argument.
She could keep it close. However, this scenario is really diffiuclt to occur.
She needs to win decisively in Ohio. She needs to keep in extremely close in Texas. But even if this happens, she will still be behind in pledged delegates.
Adding in MI and FL, she takes the lead... but unfortunetly the DNC will not let this happen. It would be akin to the superdelegates choosing the nominee; Hillary's nomination will have a huge air of illegitimacy to it... especially considering Obama wasnt on the ballot in MI.
Its possible yes, but unlikely. Unfortunetly I think the only thing Hillary can do in the next two weeks is sit back and see if Obama makes a stumble.
Questioning Obama's message now this late in the game and yelling "Shame on you Barack Obama!" on the tv screen makes her look desperate, and her campaign seems unable to decide on a strategy to go with. She has had a complete 180 turn in the past two days from the debate, and it feels very inauthentic.
**Michiganders
If she doesn't win Texas, it's over.
In fact, she needs 60% of the delegates in PA, OH, and TX to tie him in delegates.
Also, her angry rant on TV isn't going to help her, and actually reminds voters of what they dislike about her.
Further, his critique on her healthcare plan and NAFTA are accurate. She supported NAFTA, calling it a victory in her book.
Also, regarding FL and MI: isn't it sad that Hillary is going back on her earlier pledge because she's not winning anymore? Enough of this kind of politics!
Just three days ago, Justin posted to this blog about how it's important for Obama to live up to his pledges and I think it's important to the Democratic party for Hillary to do the same.
She said should wouldn't campaign there and did anyway, she said the delegates wouldn't be seated, but now that she needs them she's going to make a big fuss about them and scream about not disenfranchising anybody?
This doesn't pass the smell test, as far as I'm concerned. If anybody should be ashamed of him or herself it's Hillary Clinton.
Go home, Hill!
Post a Comment
<< Home