All the Wrong Moves

One of the arguments that ardent Obama supporters have used to rebut the charge that the Illinois Senator lacks experience in the national political arena is the sheer quality of his campaign. Look, they say, he's mounted a massive national campaign with excellent infrastructure, terrific grassroots organization, an unprecedented Internet operation, and a cohesive brand centered around change. He out-organized Clinton in the caucus states, raised more money, and brought in more new voters. The Obama '08 operation in itself is the strongest argument for the Senator's national executive ambitions. And speaking frankly, it's an argument that has resonated strongly with this Clinton supporter.

Lately, however, the Obama campaign has been making the wrong moves and it's troubling to a Democrat who wants his second choice to run strong against McCain come November's chill. Senator Obama allowed his supporters in Michigan to oppose a revote he might easily have won, and in doing so, removed one of Clinton's best arguments for going on the Denver. He's thrown away his massive lead in the media primary by refusing to meet regularly with the press, and acting as the most aloof of the three remaining candidates for President. And now, he's refusing to debate Hillary in Indiana or North Carolina.

This is almost indescribably stupid. For one, running and hiding from Hillary looks, well, like running and hiding from Hillary. It cements that growing perception in the press that she's tougher, and that he's a brittle political actor - all smiles when the polls are moving upward, quite another story in stormy seas. When you're running against a beloved American war hero and the Republican attack machine, this is never a good posture.

Secondly, it leaves Obama's terrible performance in the last debate at the top of people's minds when they think of the two Democrats duking it out. For all the hand-wringing about the inane ABC News questions in the debate's first half, it was Obama's sullen and seemingly lost persona that was the Philly battle's real story. Coming out strong - and well-rested, it must be said - in Indiana or North Carolina could do wonders for the battered Obama brand.

Finally, refusing to meet on the field of political combat continues to support the growing narrative that Senator Obama is trying to run out the clock against Hillary Clinton - that he's using a kind of passive-aggressive strategy to eke out a narrow win as Clinton runs out of playing time, content to take the nomination even while losing a string of primaries. This is a disastrous story for him - the very idea that after all that success, he has to just "hang on" to beat Clinton, putting out the equivalent of a political prevent defense in the last three or four minutes. That very strategy simply gives the Clinton campaign more rope to play with - and her ultimate goal is to force overtime in Denver.

A week ago, that seemed almost impossible. But as Barack Obama hides from the very public debates that could seal a decisive victory, overtime is looking more and more likely in this long contest for the Democratic nomination.

UPDATE: Hillary has challenged Barack to an unmoderated debate: "Just the two of us, going for 90 minutes, asking and answering questions. We’ll set whatever rules seem fair.” He can't possibly refuse, can he?

Comments

[Andre]

What was the Sherlock Holmes rule? You eliminate all the impossibilities and whatever is left, regardless of how improbable, has to be: he's a phony!!!!

[BlueStateGirl]

Obama says no debate.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/04/26/politics/fromtheroad/entry4048227.shtml

Coward.

[zeke]

Blue State Girl,

I missed the post you made after Hillary's Tall Tales from Tuzla, but I'm assuming it read equally succinctly:

"Liar"

[tdraicer]

Oh Obama lies as well Zeke (all pols do, and that's what he is). I think most Dems will take the "Liar" over the "Liar and Coward."

[msakel]

Thanks for another insightful column, Tom! Now, could it be that Obama is hiding as he does not want a repeat of the ABC Debate in which his pathetically inept performance in the hands of Stephanopoulos and Gibson left Him Speechless?

I wonder about BO's coping mechanisms for his anger and bitterness. Surely, he cannot go on repeating his JayZ rapper-wannabe act the day after in N.C. when he mentioned Hillary's name and then paused to cryptically and obscenely gesture his "flipping off" of Hillary, giving her his mid-finger in full view of a wildly applauding audience whom he urged, via pregnant pause and smirk, to clue in! It was an incredibly well-syncronized act with Obama's subsequent "shaking off the mud and s*it" off his dainty shoulders and shoes--to the wild applause of his followers. I am wondering isn't there a better way, perhaps a more mature way, for Obama to express his bitterness and disappointment with Himself? Is this a respectful way to address his fellow (female) senator Hillary Clinton?

His Junior High 'maturity creds' perhaps should dictate to His Hopeness to quickly revise his anorexic resume and apply to SNL for a comedian-political mime's job. His post-Debate N.C. speech fingering his opponent) should be attached as reference. At least the joke wouldn't be on the voters! To give this misogynist juvenile the keys to the White House would be like giving your 14-year-old son, out on his first date, the keys to your new car!

[zeke]

tdraicer,

examples, please of an Obama lie that comes anywhere near the breathtakingly stupid Tuzla whopper?

Calling Obama a coward is probably an effective way of relieving your frustration, but in the end it is an opinion shared by very few. Clinton's lie is a demonstrated fact. Likewise, her vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq was hardly a profile in courage.

All this is not to say I won't support her should she somehow manage to pull out the nomination. McCain's lies are so much more significant and dangerous that I would never vote for him.

But I'd much prefer to be able to cast my vote for a candidate who had the good judgement to oppose the Iraq war from the start. And one who declined to join the ranks of those saber-rattlers, Clinton included, who voted to give George Bush cover should he decide to launch an attack on Iran.

[zeke]

msakel,

Examples, please, of Obama's misogyny? And don't give me that bullshit about Obama flipping off Hillary. Even if he had intentionally done so, which is far from established, it could hardly have been construed as misogynistic.

Or are you saying that, as a member of the fairer sex Hillary's tender sensibilities are less able to sustain the occasional obscene gesture than would be a man? If so, I think maybe you are the one who is prone to sexist thinking.

I believe it was the great statesperson and aphorist Hillary Rodham Clinton who once said "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

[donna darko]

Obama's Other None Exaggerations

1. Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed.
2. Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma.
3. Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts.
4. Obama’s assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing ’strains credulity.’ “
5. Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists ‘won’t work in my White House.’
6. ‘Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama’s health plan.’
7. Sen. Obama said ‘I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,’ but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force.
8. ‘Obama…seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made’ on ethics reform.
9. Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.

[zeke]

Thanks Donna,

Didn't see anything there quite as blatant as Tuzla, but it is an instructive list nonetheless. Though I fail to see how number 7 on you list qualifies as "misspeaking," let alone lying.

[PkCovard]

For lies more telling than exaggerating the circumstances of flying into a war zone see here:-

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/

[Ken]

Tuzla is a non-issue. She was there and did her job. If she misspoke, she apologized. Only the most childish keeps yelling liar liar with nothing more to say beyond that. As for Obama, his entire backstory is full of obfuscations and whitewashing. All the associations that he conveniently denies or forgets until some evidence prods his faulty memory have been doing his campaign and credibility heavy damage. He never heard any offensive Wright sermons until he remembered he did. He wasn't close to Rezko until he was backed into a corner with evidence of a long association and money trail. There will surely be more to come. He's deceiving the American people on a grand scale. The Republcians will have a field day with all his flaws because he has a bad habit of masking his shady past with shaky denials. I don't care if he's a liar, that's his own psychological problem, but he needs learn to face the baggage from his past head on and deal with it before he ruins this election year for us all.

[zeke]

Ken,

My "LIAR" riposte was in response to the one word "COWARD" post immediately preceding. You may have noticed, but chosen to ignore, the post where I elucidated my reasons for preferring Obama to Clinton. Those reasons have to do with Obama's consistent and principled stance on Iraq.

I willingly concede that Obama has obfuscated, hedged and misspoken in the course of his campaign. You, on the other hand, live in the land of denial if you believe that a vividly told bald-faced lie can be sloughed off as a mere slip of the tongue. You are likewise naive if you believe that Hillary's tall tale will not be exploited by the McCain campaign should she somehow become the Democratic nominee. The attack-ad almost writes itself, replete with video.

Barack can and will beat McCain in November, as long as putative Democrats like you don't get their knickers in a twist and refuse to vote, or vote for McCain, just because Obama had an angry and eloquent pastor (one who counseled the Clinton's after Bill's infidelity), or because Obama was acquainted with a shady contributor (gee, Hillary's contributors were all above-board, weren't they, except the one who went to jail), or because Obama is acquainted with a former member of the Weather Underground (two of whose members, convicted murderers, Bill Clinton pardoned.)

You see, Ken we all have baggage. I'll bet you've got a duffle bag or two yourself. What you don't have is a sense of perspective. I suggest you develop one before you start ranting again about Obama's psychological problems.

[Mawm]

Their is ample evidence Obama is a coward.

1. He blocks re-votes in FL and MI, afraid of the Democratic process.

2. Votes present over a hundred times in the Illinois senate.

3. Ducks out on votes in the US Senate. For example, the Iran Revolutionary Guard resolution, the MoveOn condemnation

4. Now he is afraid of debating Hillary.

Total Coward. He has never had to fight for anything in his life. He got his start by cowardly using legal maneuvers to knock his opponents of the ballot in IL. He does not trust the Democratic process. Alice Palmer is now supporting Hilary in IN.
Do we want a coward as our next President. No way.

[M]

Clinton did not pardon them, he commuted their sentences after they served decades and expressed regret. Neither of them had ANYTHNG do to with the Brinks murders, but you keep pretending they did. They were jailed for transporting explosives. One was "suspected" of driving at Brinks,but that was never shown. Clinton did not commute them and then hang out with them for decades or ask them to run campaigns for him. By the way, more is coming that will show that Barack Obama lied in that debate where he looked like a deer in the headlights.

Actually the two people who were imprisoned for the brinks murders are the biological parents of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn's "adoptive" son. He's a radical too and thinks what his parents did was just great. You admire interesting people.

[Mawm]

Zeke,

Obama's "principled stand on Iraq" is another coward's move. He was against the war while in his South Side Chicago district. It was not brave to take that stand because he was surrounded by constituents who agreed with it. Chicago politics are left to the point of radicalism.
But what did he do when he got into the US Senate to stop the war? The answer is not a damn thing. He took the coward's route, voting to fund the war like all the rest of the Democrats.
Obama is a political coward. His positions change depending on the environment he is swimming in.

I will not vote for the guy. I am afraid of what a cowardly Democratic president and a fillibuster proof Democratic congress could reek on the country. If the Superdelegates decide to force this creation of Kerry and Kennedy on us, I will be voting for divided government in the fall.

[Anjuna]

Great now they can pummel each other into oblivion without having to blame a referee. Looks like we are heading for a situation where the semi-final is all where the action is at and the final an optional extra.(http://mangomood.blogspot.com)
Can we leave some of the cool stuff for D-Day please?

[Tom W.]

I must disagree with the term "coward" in connection with either of them - it's inflammatory without the added bonus of any nuance. I don't think Obama is particularly cowardly for ducking Clinton, but I think it's very bad strategy that can look like cowardice to the chattering classes - an important distinction. Anybody who puts himself through what Barack is can't be cowardly, in my view. (Goes for Hillary too).

"Liar" on the other hand is far more watered-down in the political context, to me anyway. You may as well hurl the vile epithet "office-seeker!"

[tina oiticica harris]

To me Barack Obama is extremely opportunistic. And has a thin resumé. And played dirty to get started in Illinois. And has connections with Tony Rezko and who knows who else.
To me Barack Obama is as African-American as my son, whose paternal grandpa is black, from the French Guyana. Barack Obama was raised in a white environment, culturally is white, as my mutt son. It's hilarious(sad, really) when he puts on an MLK accent. My doctor noticed it. Even my husband, who's French, noticed it.
Barack Obama was against the war as a State Senator. Then he approved the moneys for war like most everyone else.

However, if he ran as a vice-president to Hillary, I would think about him and give him a shot. If he is our candidate I will close my eyes and dutifully vote for the Democratic Party, as I have had since 1972.

[Tom K]

I'm sure this was a very thoughtful post, Tom.

But here's the thing, Tom: whatever the tactical or strategic arguments for or against more debates from the perspective of Obama or the D party, I knew you'd be blogging that he should do it as soon as I saw that the HRC campaign had launched a new campaign debate.

This tends to make your blog less a place I look for independent thought, and more a place I look to see how the HRC campaign is speaking to people who don't want to read their standard-issue campaign literature, but who it thinks it can fool with a Tom Watson sock-puppet.

How about this -- debates are one of the weakest fora for Barak as candidate,so it would benefit HRC if he held a whole bunch of 'em, which is exactly why he shouldn't (and she wouldn't if their positions were reversed). Or how about stating this straight: you believe Obama should hold a series of debates, say two a week, to continue until he has surrendered the lead to HRC.

[zeke]

Mawn writes:

"But what did he do when he got into the US Senate to stop the war? The answer is not a damn thing. He took the coward's route, voting to fund the war like all the rest of the Democrats.
Obama is a political coward. His positions change depending on the environment he is swimming in.

I will not vote for the guy. I am afraid of what a cowardly Democratic president and a fillibuster proof Democratic congress could reek on the country. If the Superdelegates decide to force this creation of Kerry and Kennedy on us, I will be voting for divided government in the fall."

Of course, by designating Obama for being a coward for voting exactly as did Clinton, he is by definition calling Clinton a coward too. No wonder he/she is contemplating a vote for the "heroic" McCain and divided government.

Mawn also takes a swipe at Kerry, who by most objective measures is more of a hero than any of the current crop of candidates. His courage in opposing the Vietnam War, after serving honorably in that conflict, was famously and falsely demeaned by the Swift Boat Veterans. Perhaps Mawn has thrown his lot in with this lovely bunch?

Mawn, in short, is a disingenuous idiot.

[zeke]

Oh, and so is Mawm...

[andre lee]

If he is going to refuse to debate HRC one on one because he's not good at it, what is he going to do as the Dem. Nom. in the GE when McCain and the Repubs. use this weakness and McCains superior darling status with the press by openly challenging him to debates. He'd have to hope he gets moderators who are willing to go at JMcCain just like they'll go after him. When they do is he gonna whine 'No fair' in the GE, like Kerry did and expect to win. The Repubs. will brand OB as a coward, afraid to face an old man now, and a woman earlier. He's winning. He's supposed to great. That would be a boon to the network that showed it. It would be the highest rated, most watched debate ever. The rest of the world would be more than interested in seeing it also. It would be the grandest stage to show what he's got. Why in the world would he not want to show up?

[Bob]

Obama doesn't lack experience. In the last few decades three presidents have come to the White House with a governorship their sole political experience. One, Carter, was a mediocrity who paved the way for the next, Reagan, who was brilliant. The last is the present occupant about whom the less said the better. Still, on the experience scale being a governor has provided presidents who were brilliant, mediocre and abysmal. Don’t really see any pattern there.
And before the flame war begins let me explain I think Reagan was a terrible president as regarding the policies he pursued. When I say he was a great president I mean as a political figure he knew how to work the system and get his legislation passed, which is all the experience argument is about. It’s not an ideological argument – it’s a competence argument; inexperienced doesn’t mean he’ll pass legislation you disagree with, it means he won’t be able to enact his agenda.
Two entirely different arguments. But all you Hillary supporters keep hammering away at experience. Now that Karl Rove is retired the right needs you more than ever to do their dirty work for them.

[Tom K]

This might be a good time and place to consider why Obama has proven to be a relatively poor debater, and what that means about his candidacy.

He's a Harvard-Law-Review editor who is a gifted speaker. You put those two together, and you'd think you'd get a pretty good debater. But, while he's got heavyweight skills in many areas, and heavyweight ambitions, he punches at a much lower weight class. A lot has been said about HRC's ability to take a punch, and I conceded her admirable toughness, but more should be asked about how much of her grit is attributable to his flit.

I say this because this "weakness" of his, while real, is also an aspect of his strength, in at least two ways. One, it is consistent with his formal position (generally maintained by his person better than by his campaign) that he is into building up, not tearing down (or however the emphasis on positive over negative gets expressed at any given time.) Two, he expects too much of his listeners, which could be framed more affirmatively as he respects the intelligence of his listeners too much. He often seems to think he's scoring points by making roundabout references that a better politician whould know almost no one in the electorate follows.

When he learns to be more direct without being mean, he may be ready to run for President. Especially if he can move the smug-o-meter down a few notches when doing well. He should be asking himself if he'll get all that done by 2012, so he can decide whether or not to accept the No. 2 spot on HRC's ticket.

[Bob]

Tom K - right on, dude. Obama should go to Denver with more popular votes and more delegates and take the VP slot.
By 2012 he might just be ready for a seat at the front of the bus.

[zuzu]

examples, please of an Obama lie that comes anywhere near the breathtakingly stupid Tuzla whopper?

How about claiming that his 2002 anti-war speech was politically risky because he was in the midst of a high-stakes Senate campaign when he delivered it?

Except for the fact that nobody knew he was running until 2003.

[Judith]

and it's zuzu for the win!

[Engleski Rjecnik]

Could it be that Obama is hiding? It surely looks like he is.

Love the guy anyhow.

Cheers,

Era

[Mutaman]

1. Obama may be soft but he is no coward. I don't know if its fair to call Mawn disingenuious, but it is fair to call Mawn an idiot.

2. I'm watching hope fall apart right before my eyes. Come on Senator Obama, despite all the tree hugging BS I always thought you were a good guy. You're a young man- Do the right thing- take vp, bide your time for 4-8 more years, build up the resume, take the vp spot. Hillary has really earned it and she will beat that old bastard. Your time will come. But this Novemeber, you're cooked.

[Judith]

Mutaman - I agree with you. He would learn a lot. My intial issue wtih him was lack of experience and that hasnt changed no matter what noises are made and accusations laid.

I think all we can do is see how this plays out. I have never wavered from thinking it would be Clinton in June. I still think that is likely. I cant find it in me to debate it anymore either so I guess I understand where Obama is coming from. He doesnt have anything to say like she does so why bother? But he looks bad refusing. His media buddies need the ratings.

[Tom K]

Bob:

While I think I would have the right to express my opinion regardless (despite the implications of your post), I would in fact prefer that Obama get the nomination. But if things happened just 'cause I wanted them to, I wouldn't be sitting at a computer right now to write out this post.

Real world, Obama's allowing the impression that he's not ready to gather momentum (helped by a media that seems to have gotten tired of building him up, and can't imagine what else to do than tear him down.) I have long felt HRC would find a way to win, and the current trends suggest that may be on the way to happening.

While I feel pretty sure in my prediction, obviously I don't know for sure how it will play out. One thing I do know for sure, though. Whatever happens, those of Obama's supporters who impute racism to anyone who dares to express the opinion that he might not win are doing him no good, short-, mid-, or long-term.

[Bob]

By what logic does the candidate winning the process have to take a seat in the back of the bus? What crap. Oh, and this: "Hillary has really earned it and she will beat that old bastard." is the height of stupidity. The person who "earns" the nomination is the person who wins the nomination. If Clinton can't even win the Democratic nomination by what stretch of the imagination is she the stronger candidate in the general election? Christ, teh stupid, it hurts.

[Bob]

Tom K: For every one hint of racism levelled by Obama supporters I literally encounter at least one hundred charges of sexism levelled by Clinton supporters. My post above was the first time I resorted to what I find to be a despicable gambit - I'm just so effin sick of the sexism crap - as if there's no legitimate reason to vote against the AUMF/Blast Iran back to the stone age candidate.

[Tom K]

I've had that argument with the HRC folks, who have alleged sexism more broadly than has been warranted. I think there has been more overt sexism than racism in this campaign, but each candidate has supporters who have alleged them unfairly. I have no reason to suppose you have done so previously, but I sniffed it in your "front-of-the bus" comment, and I think it's wrong when done by either camp.

On your other point, "the person who earns the nomination" is the person who gets to the required number of delegates. It looks like neither one will do that with pledged delegates alone. HRC may be annoying (she is to me), but she is not wrong in saying that the superdelegates (and even the pledged delegates, once the terms of their commitments expire, often after a certain number of ballots at the convention I think) have the right and obligation to nominate the person they think would be the best candidate.

Obama can win the argument that he is that candidate -- despite all we're hearing now, the notion that HRC is deeply rooted to the heartland voter is a very recent development, her negatives are very high, and she unites the R base more (I believe) than Obama would. The thing is, his supporters are acting like he shouldn't have to have that argument, because he's already won.

He hasn't, yet, and by wanting to shorten the game (which is really what they're trying to do, rather than running out the clock as alleged), the Obama campaign looks bad. Which it can't afford, either in looking forward to the general, or in actualy ensuring that it gets there.

[donna darko]

The sexism is a constant and Obama knows it. He's a rhetoritician and knows it's not lost on men. Meanwhile, the last racist incident was SC and the "thugged" statement. Here's an example from yesterday's New York Times:

In interviews with several associates and aides, Mr. Obama was described as bored with the campaign against Mrs. Clinton and eager to move into the general election against Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee.

He's constantly condescending like this. He's bored and presumptuously assumes he's the nominee. She wouldn't say "I'm bored with Obama and preparing for the general against McCain."

[donna darko]

The sexism is really annoying and he'll get his comeuppance.

[Judith]

hey donna darko

- just please note that what you quoted said he was "described as" - not that he said those things.

[zeke]

Good Grief,

As per Donna Darko, now it is sexist to express ennui!

By that logic (which needless to say I do not subscribe to), Hillary was being a racist when she stated that only the two white candidates running for president had passed the commander in chief test.

[Bob]

Tom K: First, I apologize for the slur - you hadn't said anything to deserve it. I am sick to death of the routine charge of sexism thrown at any man not supporting Clinton. It really REALLY needs to stop. But you weren’t part of that chorus and I was wrong to act as though you were. I’m sorry.
As for your point about superD's you are legally correct but politically wrong. If this goes to Denver and Obama has clear leads in popular vote and delegates and the superD's hand the nomination to Clinton they will be A. acting in a legally sufficient manner and B. destroying the Democratic Party for at least the next 10 years. Smoke filled back rooms are not the place to pick a candidate. This hair-splitting legal argument ain't gonna mean shit to the 12 - 14 million people who voted for Obama – especially not the African-Americans who have gone 88% Democratic in the last 4 national elections. Toss their votes out and the Republicans could run a poodle and win.
donna darko - if you fail to see racism playing a role in coverage of Obama you need to look inward. Here's a starting point for you, and yes, I know, ancient history and all that, but how about the husband of Sen. Clinton and his Jesse Jackson comparison? That ain't dog whistle politics, donna, that's Screaming Through A Bullhorn From the Rooftop politics.
And another hint: does the name Rev. Jeremiah Wright ring a bell? Imagine the nerve of that man who was an adult before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed...how dare he be so angry about America?
Gee, I don't know, race might play an ever so small role in this whole manufactured controversy.

[donna darko]

Whether it's his condescending attitude or headlines, there's something sexist every day. He will pay for it especially since he enables and does not denounce it.

[David Parsons]

“But all you Hillary supporters keep hammering away at experience. Now that Karl Rove is retired the right needs you more than ever to do their dirty work for them.”

May I suggest, Bob, that if you're actually interested in having your candidate win the presidential election (as opposed to merely defeating Ms. Clinton and then letting the Republican old white guy coast into the White House,) that you might wish to reconsider implying that Clinton supporters are Republicans.

[Bob]

David Parsons: There is nothing wrong with Clinton trying to win the nomination but when she and her supporters grasp at straws (which is all the "experience" argument is - there is NO pattern whatever among presidential success and past experience) you ARE helping the Republicans. At this point barring a major scandal, Obama will be the Democratic nominee. You (plural) have already successfully planted doubts in the minds of many swing voters regarding Obama’s experience even though should he win he will take the oath of office with comparable experience to roughly half of all past presidents. It’s a bullshit argument one would normally have to watch Fox news to hear. How do you see this tactic NOT hurting the Democrats chances in the general election? What, you’ll succeed in convincing people Obama doesn’t have the experience, he won’t be caught sleeping with a 12 year old so he’ll get the nomination anyway, and then…..what? Win the general as the guy even his Democratic colleague Sen. Clinton pointed out wasn’t experienced although she and McCain were? See, when you scream from the rooftops that Obama is weak, unelectable, and completely unready to serve you are paving the way for a Republican victory in the fall. What do think will happen: you can trash Obama for the better part of a year until he gets the nomination then call “do-over” and have the game start afresh? Doesn’t work like that.
I apologize if my pointing out that labeling the odds-on favorite to win the Democratic nomination might actually have consequences upsets you.

[Tom K]

Bob:

No problem.

I note you say the D's can't, practically, give the nomination to HRC: "If this goes to Denver and Obama has clear leads in popular vote and delegates . . .". At a certain point I agree, but I think she may pull close enough that he doesn't really have a "clear lead". It is still too early to say that she won't, anyway. If it is that close, it'll be a barnburner; more D '68 convention than R '76, I suspect, but with elements of both.

[Bob]

Tom K: I don't care if Obama arrives in Denver with a 1 vote lead in both the popular vote and delegate vote; he is clearly then the "winner" of the popular vote and the delegate count. Of course according to Democratic Party rules he will be shy of the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination. If party insiders hand the nomination to the candidate who came in second place they destroy the Democratic coalition. If they hand the nomination to the person in first place whatever follows at least follows from party insiders ratifying - not overturning - the will of the people.

[Tom K]

But the will of the people cannot be assumed to be static (to echo BHO's earlier criticism of Rev. Wright's racial views). If there have been material developments since the votes were cast, it would be legitimate to take them into account to deny the nomination to a candidiate who, in any event, failed to win the requisite delegates to clinch.

On all that, I agree with the HRC campaign. So, should it go to HRC? Not in my book for sure (but it probably will). To BHO? Probably should (but won't). But how about the superdelegates say this -- HRC has convinced us that BHO can't win, but we don't see how she can either given the animosity she's added, in the D camp, to that she already generated among R's. So, we're going off the menu. Al Gore, perhaps? Does anyone think he'd say no? And, let him pick Bill Richardson for running mate, so neither HRC nor BHO gets a leg up for 2012 (or 2016, as the case may be).

[Tom]

Of course Clinton wants to debate. Her campaign is losing and will lose barring a huge momentum shift. How massive would this shift need to be? Well, the crazy black preacher talking up Farrakhan wasn't enough. So it needs to be pretty damn big.

Obama needs three hundred more delegates to get the nomination. He is going to win about a hundred delegates on Tuesday (so will Clinton). Then, assuming he loses badly in KY and WV, he's going to win about a hundred delegates in the remaining primaries/caucuses. He'll need about a hundred more delegates from the supers out of the three hundred remaining who haven't endorsed. Does anyone really think that he won't get that hundred? With supers endorsing him every day? With the Pelosi Club?

We live in a parallel political universe these days; so many otherwise intelligent observers can't see the facts in front of them. Obama will be the nominee. I'm not huge on him (though I prefer him to Clinton), but it doesn't matter. Obama will be the nominee, and there's really not much point in trying to get him to debate an opponent who can't win.

[Tom G]

Lots of Toms around here. I'll be Tom G from now on... (that was my post at 9:36)