red states rule
04-18-2008, 05:12 AM
Since Obama and Hillary cannot win the nomination with pledged delegates, the nominee will be chosen by the Superdelegates
Now Hillary may have the ammo to convince the Superdelegates Barry is not ready for prime time
Philly Face-off
A super-delegate debate.
By Stephen Spruiell
Philadelphia, Pa. — Judging by the immediate reaction online, it appears that the commentariat came away from Wednesday night’s Democratic debate on ABC with two impressions. The first is that Obama lost the debate, and the second is that ABC News moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous asked stupid questions. Both assessments are wrong.
On the first count, one cannot say whether Obama “won” or “lost” without considering what Hillary needed to accomplish. There are only two ways she can win the nomination now. Either she must overcome Obama’s lead in pledged delegates (a.k.a. those won during the primaries and caucuses), which is nearly impossible mathematically, or she must win the votes of enough superdelegates (a.k.a. Democratic-party bosses) to overturn the verdict of the party rank-and-file. For her to do that, she will have to persuade a majority of the superdelegates (or a majority of them must reach the conclusion on their own) that Obama cannot win in the general election against John McCain.
This is the reality of the race as the Politico’s Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen accurately described it last month, and Clinton wasn’t able to change it last night. For one thing, she demonstrated again that she can’t attack Obama on any front without opening herself up to similar charges. When she tried to exploit Obama’s connection to William Ayers, a former leader in the ‘60s domestic terror group the Weather Underground, Obama shot right back: “President Clinton pardoned or commuted the sentences of two members of the Weather Underground,” he said, “which I think is a slightly more significant act… than me serving on a board with somebody.”
In the spin room after the debate, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson pointed to Obama’s slippery answers on gun control and argued that his credibility had taken a blow. But if Obama’s credibility has taken a blow, Clinton’s has taken a beat-down: During the debate, Stephanopolous pointed out that six out of ten voters in a recent poll now view her as dishonest. When asked to account for several factually untrue things she said recently about a 1996 trip to Bosnia, Clinton replied, “On a couple of occasions in the last weeks, I just said some things that weren’t in keeping with what I knew to be the case.” That’s as close as you’ll ever get to hearing a politician admit that she lied.
for the complete article
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGNlMzhlYWJjYTc3ZWU0MTg1MWI1YTBhNDAxOTJkNjY=
Now Hillary may have the ammo to convince the Superdelegates Barry is not ready for prime time
Philly Face-off
A super-delegate debate.
By Stephen Spruiell
Philadelphia, Pa. — Judging by the immediate reaction online, it appears that the commentariat came away from Wednesday night’s Democratic debate on ABC with two impressions. The first is that Obama lost the debate, and the second is that ABC News moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous asked stupid questions. Both assessments are wrong.
On the first count, one cannot say whether Obama “won” or “lost” without considering what Hillary needed to accomplish. There are only two ways she can win the nomination now. Either she must overcome Obama’s lead in pledged delegates (a.k.a. those won during the primaries and caucuses), which is nearly impossible mathematically, or she must win the votes of enough superdelegates (a.k.a. Democratic-party bosses) to overturn the verdict of the party rank-and-file. For her to do that, she will have to persuade a majority of the superdelegates (or a majority of them must reach the conclusion on their own) that Obama cannot win in the general election against John McCain.
This is the reality of the race as the Politico’s Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen accurately described it last month, and Clinton wasn’t able to change it last night. For one thing, she demonstrated again that she can’t attack Obama on any front without opening herself up to similar charges. When she tried to exploit Obama’s connection to William Ayers, a former leader in the ‘60s domestic terror group the Weather Underground, Obama shot right back: “President Clinton pardoned or commuted the sentences of two members of the Weather Underground,” he said, “which I think is a slightly more significant act… than me serving on a board with somebody.”
In the spin room after the debate, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson pointed to Obama’s slippery answers on gun control and argued that his credibility had taken a blow. But if Obama’s credibility has taken a blow, Clinton’s has taken a beat-down: During the debate, Stephanopolous pointed out that six out of ten voters in a recent poll now view her as dishonest. When asked to account for several factually untrue things she said recently about a 1996 trip to Bosnia, Clinton replied, “On a couple of occasions in the last weeks, I just said some things that weren’t in keeping with what I knew to be the case.” That’s as close as you’ll ever get to hearing a politician admit that she lied.
for the complete article
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGNlMzhlYWJjYTc3ZWU0MTg1MWI1YTBhNDAxOTJkNjY=