Walking on Eggshells
Sen. Barack Obama is on the brink of securing the Democratic nomination, as in, "in a manner that the Clinton Campaign will find hard to spin or ignore." Nevertheless, Sen. Hillary Clinton remains absolute in her "We Need to Count Michigan and Florida" and "Popular Vote Count in the Primary = Nominee" arguments.
For Obama, the formula is simple: win by enough of a margin that pundits, Democratic superdelegates and Clinton supporters alike will have to concede that seating Michigan and Florida would make no difference in the lead, and keep the popular vote count close.
For Clinton, it's a little harder. She has to pray that Obama screws up (which is more likely the more he focuses on President Bush and Sen. John McCain). She needs a turnaround of epic proportions; when the dust settles she needs a commanding lead in the popular vote. Without that, she can't persuade any undecided superdelegates nor can she make the case that Florida and Michigan need to be counted.
What they don't want (as pointed out in the NYT article) is to be blamed as the one who destroyed the Democrats' chance of getting the White House and capitalizing on the stumbles, fumbles and bumbles of the GOP. Obama cannot come across as smug or arrogant (he'll lose just about every female Clinton supporter) and Clinton has to avoid the "sore loser" label...which not only destroys any chances of her being involved in the Obama Campaign, but would essentially classify her as "damaged goods" (Goodbye Majority Leader and Frontrunner for 2012).
I've said before and I'll say again: all of this could have been avoided if Clinton would have ran in 2004.
For Obama, the formula is simple: win by enough of a margin that pundits, Democratic superdelegates and Clinton supporters alike will have to concede that seating Michigan and Florida would make no difference in the lead, and keep the popular vote count close.
For Clinton, it's a little harder. She has to pray that Obama screws up (which is more likely the more he focuses on President Bush and Sen. John McCain). She needs a turnaround of epic proportions; when the dust settles she needs a commanding lead in the popular vote. Without that, she can't persuade any undecided superdelegates nor can she make the case that Florida and Michigan need to be counted.
What they don't want (as pointed out in the NYT article) is to be blamed as the one who destroyed the Democrats' chance of getting the White House and capitalizing on the stumbles, fumbles and bumbles of the GOP. Obama cannot come across as smug or arrogant (he'll lose just about every female Clinton supporter) and Clinton has to avoid the "sore loser" label...which not only destroys any chances of her being involved in the Obama Campaign, but would essentially classify her as "damaged goods" (Goodbye Majority Leader and Frontrunner for 2012).
I've said before and I'll say again: all of this could have been avoided if Clinton would have ran in 2004.
Comments