I’m not sure the old “Well Bush did it first” nugget is going to work that well when it’s Clinton vs. Obama.
Talk about a line that feeds the argument. 
Clinton has the bigger machine and yet Obama seems to be overcoming it. He did well on Super-Tuesday and that was the event that was suppose to make HRC the candidate.
A large number of people seem to be genuinely engaged and enthusiastic about Obama. This is not a common occurrence in my lifetime.
Jim
Just thought I’d jump in here with a cite for that statement:
Obama’s call “centers” (if you can call them that) feature wall outlets without phone lines. Volunteers are urged to bring their cell phones and chargers, or simply place calls from home using a web application that delivers voter info directly to their browsers. Obama is building a machine out of spare parts, and it’s kind of stunning to behold.
RickJay, I agree with your dissection of the article – but letting their post-Ohio-and-Texas strategy “leak” still takes balls of brass.
I have a more charitable reading now that I’ve considered it: it’s possible that the intent was to make a subtle but overt proposal for a timetable. It’s possible that HRC’s campaign is willing to end the race (regardless of who is ahead) after Texas/Ohio. That doesn’t jive very well with her insistence that every state’s primary be counted – surely Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and eight other states each deserve the same consideration she wants to extend to Michigan and Florida? – but it seems like a reasonable time for whomever is behind in the count to consider bowing out. If this was her intent, then I applaud her sense of fair play and her commitment to the bigger picture.
And if Hillary withdraws within a week of Ohio/Texas, I’ll eat a bug.
Since delegates are awarded proportionately, it’s not necessarily true that winning TX and OH will give Hillary the lead again, let alone a “substantial” one; it would depend on her margins of victory.
It will also depend on whether you include superdelegates – who can change alliances if they choose – and how many more of them have indicated their support to either candidate by then.
Depending on what happens tomorrow (and in Wisconsin later this month), it’s certainly possible that Hillary wins TX and OH narrowly and remains behind overall.
Where can I find a list of what superdelegates have pledged already and for whom?
If I find that my elected official is supporting a candidate that lost 2.4:1 in the caucus, I will let them know of my displeasure.
You can’t. That’s why the totals cited by various news organizations differ. Some have publicly endorsed a candidate (Ted Kennedy, etc.) so you can assume those are on the list. The rest of them are on lists maintained by each campaign, which are given to news organizations to support the claim of how many have committed. The media then try to confirm the names directly to arrive at a total.
You could start with your representative’s website, to see if he/she has endorsed – if so, there should be a press release. If not, you could write or call to ask if his/her support has been pledged, and convey your opinion that support should go to the candidate who won the constituency’s vote.
List of pledged superdelegates:
Superdelegates.org has a list based solely on public endorsements, which is about as good a listing as you’re going to get. Comparing it to the delegate scores from CNN gives you an interesting look at the mismatches between the will of the people and the will of the party.
For example, I discovered that the governor of my former home state, Delaware, continues to support Hillary despite her loss in the state (53% to 43%). Is that wrong? Not really – Obama took 9 pledged delegates to Clinton’s 6, so if the governor wants to more accurately portray the mix of views within the state, that’s fine.
Assuming the story linked to in the OP is true, then you’re exactly right. Both are lobbying superdelegates to support them-- that’s what politicking is all about. But it’s another matter entirely to try and get some party bigwigs to force the other person out.
Hillary: Screw the voters, crown me!
In other news, Hillary has replaced her campaign manager with former Arizona Cardinals head coach Dennis Green.
So does this mean that Obama is who she thought he is?
And every time someone on the Obama website posts “fired up” I hear it in my mind as Jim Mora, Jr.
Superdelegates? Don’t talk about - SUPERdelegates?!? You kidding me?!?! SUPERDELEGATES!!?!!?? I just hope we can win a primary!
I’m not a great fan of Hillary Clinton. Indeed, my intent is to vote for Obama in tomorrow’s primary. However, this is an unfair characterization of what Clinton’s doing. This is a political campaign – it’s perfectly legitimate to use spin to influence people to come to your side. There are no extreme lengths being taken here – no one is actually subject to real threats of any kind. No one’s livelihoods or families are at stake if they choose Obama over Clinton. There are no indications in public pronouncements that Clinton feels entitled to be president.
And what exactly is your evidence of this? Surely, Clinton has not stated that she intends to be the Democratic nominee even if Obama is actually nominated?
I’m going to have to ask for some support for this, because my impression has been that one of Bill Clinton’s characteristics (sometimes a strength and sometimes a weakness) is that he is very willing to work with anyone regardless of past conflict.
The party gives the super delegates the right to vote for whom they please. Clinton is perfectly justified in trying to persuade them to vote for her.
It’s not that at all. It’s simply employing available resources. Do you think Obama would capitulate if he thought he could actually win? Do you think Clinton believes she can force Obama to capitulate regardless of whether he thinks he has a chance to win? Nonsense.
Nonsense. Clinton doesn’t believe that Obama could be persuaded to quit unless he sees it as being in his interest. This is all just perception gaming and there’s nothing subversive about it at all. Both Clinton and Obama will use their connections to try to get people to support them, regardless of who is ahead or behind.
What do you expect Clinton to do? “Well, Obama’s ahead now, so I think everybody should just support him.” So long as she is behind, any argument she makes amounts to “I might be behind now, but you should still support me.” Every non-leader is in that position.
The Guardian is known for typographical errors. As a source for news, it is well respected.
My information as a non-British-person is that the Telegraph is a paranoid, right-wing mouthpiece. Differing only from the Washington Times in its relative candor regarding its leanings. The Washington Times will never admit to being a Republican Party organ.
And there’s nothing wrong with that either. Contests should be contested, I say.
So far as I know, neither Clinton nor any party bigwigs have the power to force Obama out. What exactly is the kind of power she wields to actually do such a thing by force? She has only what any politician has.
Of course it’s no worse. The point is it’s no better.
Hello?! You play to win the campaign.
I’m a woman! I’m 60!
Wow, who knew that head coach press conferences could be used in so many ways?
I don’t know how to go about citing this as fact – and perhaps it isn’t – but check out Marc Ambinder’s column in April 2006:
Andrew Sullivan (a known Clinton-hater, which weakens my argument here) says this of Hillary’s campaign hiring Sandy Berger:
Both of those cites address Hillary’s long memory, not Bill’s. You may be right about the former President. I’m fairly sure I’m right about the Senator from New York. I’ll look for more cites if you’re not convinced, but mostly it’s a pervasive feeling, nothing that would even make it into print.
Are the Texas and Ohio primaries winner take all? If not, then even if she won them she might not have a big lead. And Pennsylvania is April 22, so the fat lady isn’t anywhere close to singing yet.
All’s fair etc, but I wonder if she allowed this to leak to try to misdirect the media on the chaos in her campaign. You don’t get rid of people when things are working. After last weekend Obama seems to have momentum, and this leak is trying to get people to think that the whole nomination rests on the next two primaries. It seems a desperation move to me.
I’m pretty sure none of the Democratic primaries are winner-take all. By the time March 4 rolls around, given the proportional representation part of it and the races Obama is likely to win before then, it may be hard to make up that much ground.
She is not running for cub scout leader. She is after the most powerful job in the world. Dirty tricks have defined campaigns for years. If she does it she is a bitch. Got a label for what Bush and Rove did. Swiftboating and dirty politics defined these assholes. But, she is a bitch. This is not fair. Labelling her and name calling allow you to dismiss her politics. Basically it is unfair and dishonest.