By some really, really bad oversights by the Clinton campaign is looks as if it’s highly unlikely she’ll be able to catch Barack’s pledged delegate total. And that’s even if she wins in the bigger primaries. Because not only would she have to win, but she’d have to win BIG, and with so much time between now and then, it’s inevitable that Obama will close the gap.
In fact, I just read this from Drudge Report as a teaser to a NY Times story out tomorrow…
NYT THURSDAY: Clinton’s advisers acknowledged it would be difficult to catch up in race for pledged delegates even if she succeeded in winning 3 states on which she is most pinning her hopes: Ohio and Texas in March and Pennsylvania in April. Dem party’s rules would be decided obstacle in efforts to catch up to Obama before voting phase of nominating process ends later in spring… Developing…
So that leaves the super delegates, and as I’ve mentioned before there’s literally no way she’s going to win the nomination that way. It would be akin to stealing it from the voters, and there’s no way you’d ever want to go down in history as the Democrat that was so desperate for power you stole the nomination. And let’s be clear, while the Clinton camp is saying the super delegate system is part of the process, it was made SPECIFICALLY to subvert the will of the voters because they were picking nominees that party insiders didn’t like. That IS why they exist.
The question then…has Obama won?
Sure, he hasn’t technically won, but if Hillary needs massive wins to even come close to parity in the pledged delegate counts, well, I think it’s safe to say that it’s just not going to happen. Yes, there’s always a possibility and I’m certainly not suggesting she should give up now, but the momentum is behind Obama in a big way, he’s closing in national polls, he’s polling better against McCain and he has a couple primaries coming up next week where he’s poised to win yet again.
I ask again, has Obama won?
Hillary’s camp correctly points out that nobody can actually win the nomination, meaning get 2025 total delegates, without the aid of at least some super delegates:
On that conference call earlier, Hillary spokesman Howard Wolfson signaled what will be the Hillary camp’s main argument when the spin wars over super-delegates start in earnest: Neither candidate can win this race without super-delegates.
Wolfson repeated variations of this point multiple times on the call.
Yes. That’s technically true, but I’ll again state that the winner will be the candidate who has more pledged delegates. Because whoever has the lead there, even if it’s only by ONE, should be the nominee. That’s the will of the voters, and anything less would be seen as changing that will.
Now, if Hillary and company want to keep making that case, they’re free too, but I hope they know how ill advised this is. Because what it suggests is Hill favors the decision of beltway insiders over the voters. To me that’s a losing strategy on many different fronts, not the least of which is that it continues to solidify the notion that Hillary is the ultimate insider.
More as it develops…