For all of the cacophony around 3:00 AM phone calls or whose ready to lead on day-one there remain a few stubborn, but noteworthy facts that will not go away.
After the dust settled, Sen. Clinton's impressive March 4 primary victories in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode translate in a net pickup of two delegates.
The delegate count, according to Real Clear Politics shows Senator Clinton with a net pickup of 9 delegates on March 4. Obama, with Texas' primary/caucus system actually won four more delegates than Sen. Clinton.
But Obama gained seven delegates in his subsequent victories in Wyoming and Mississippi.
Given the primaries and caucuses are a race for delegates, how then can Pennsylvania carry more weight than North Carolina and Indiana -- the states holding primaries and caucuses immediately after the Keystone state? Pennsylvania, which Sen. Clinton is expected to do well, has a total of 158 delegates. North Carolina and Indiana, where Obama is expected to do well has a total of 182 delegates.
Assuming everything holds true to form (which is a big assumption this year) the primary season through May 6 seems to benefit Obama.
Ironically, the Clinton campaign strategy is reminiscent of their initial fundraising strategy -- getting large donors to contribute the maximum, while Obama struck gold with a large pool of small dollar contributors.
But the retort to these facts is Clinton is winning the states that Democrats need to win in November. Democrats have no chance in states like Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, and Georgia -- places where Obama has done well.
In a linear sense, this is true. It does, however, assume a static electorate impervious to the changing economic and political climate.
If the country were going to stay within the predictable contours of red and blue states, the Clinton rationale would make more sense. In spite of Clinton strategist, Mark Penn's assertion that Obama can't win the general election against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, this year's political landscape may suggest otherwise.
When one examines the electoral map this year, it is actually possible for a Democrat to be victorious in November without Florida or Ohio. It's not just an unpopular war that will be debated in the fall; the economic pain across the board is felt much greater than it was four years ago.
In addition to the usual battleground suspects, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, and West Virginia -- states won by Bush in 2000 and 2004 will be back in play this year. Moreover, some pundits even believe Mississippi, with its large but dormant African American population could also be competitive if turnout is high.
McCain is trapped in an unenviable box. If he supports the present administration policies -- advantage Democrats. If he tries to run away from them -- advantage Democrats.
Obama probably will not win Idaho, South Dakota, or Wyoming, but it is equally doubtful that McCain will win New York, California, or Illinois. At present, McCain has more states to hold than do either Clinton or Obama.
McCain must rely on the Bush 2004 strategy, and to some degree the Clinton 2008 primary strategy, which is to scare voters away from their desires for change.
Did we not get a glimpse of the possible change last week? Democrat Bill Foster won the 14th Congressional seat in Illinois, which had been held for two decades by former Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert.
But we're getting ahead of ourselves; the Democrats still have to settle on a nominee. The primary season remains a race for delegates -- pledged and super. The most pressing issue for Democrats: what to do with Florida and Michigan voters?
Thus, Pennsylvania is more important because the Clinton campaign has done a superior job at defining it as such. In the words of labor organizer Saul Alinsky, whoever controls the definition controls the outcome and it is the Clinton campaign that is clearly winning the perception battle.
And perception is reality if we choose it to be so, even if it only nets the winner two delegates.
Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist. He is the author of "Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War." E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com Or go to his website, byronspeaks.com
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
the only perception battle that HRC has won is proving to voters she can be no more trusted than George Bush..
"Clinton is Winning the Perception Battle":
If you are talking about the perception that HRC will do anything:-lie, cheat,blackmail,play the race card, play the femnist card, steal, grovel, exaggerate,distort..
to make sure she gets what her own ambitious wants are over the Democratic Party
then you are SPOT-ON...
she's won that perception battle hands-down..
It's easy to mold the public perception when the media is in your pocket. That is, ever since Camp Clinton started crying about media-bias favoring Obama, the press has collectively become afraid to question or doubt anything coming out of the Clinton camp for fear of being seen as overly pro-Obama. And this, even concerning something as dispassionate and impartial as the mathematics of the delegate scorecard.
I haven't noticed the press being afraid to question anything coming out of the Clinton camp. They've done very little else. I don't think they've been favoring Obama. They've just been busy trashing Clinton and have left him more or less alone. Once he has the nomination wrapped up he will be under much greater scrutiny which is more or less what Hillary has been saying.
The argument that Hillary can win the big blue states and Obama not is ridiculous. NY and CA will go to any democrat with a pulse. The argument that she can win the swing states in the general and Obama not is also ridiculous. She beat a fellow democrat in those states, democrats who have otherwise seem to like both Obama and Clinton. There is no reason to believe that Clinton supporters would stay hom in November if Obama was the nominee. On the other hand, Obama and McCain have been splitting the large and growing independent vote all along. They might very well move to McCain if Obama is not a choice. And if Clinton is picked by the supers after Obama won the most pledged delegates, popular vote and states won, THAT might really anger a lot of Obama supporters to the point of staying home.
Replaying FL/MI can only bog the process down even more. You're right when you say that she's winning the perception war because now the perception is that FL/MI have to be redone in some fashion. The claim is that the democrats will need these states in November, and they will. But what has that got to do with this primary process? I mean it's not as if a democrat in FL/MI will blame Obama/Clinton for their self imposed disenfranchisment 2 years earlier. They'll just go out and vote as normal. They may be angry at Howard Dean, but what reason is there to stay home in November? I know this sounds foolish given the current perception spin, but why not just play by the rules that everyone agreed to at the start? Why not follow through with the plan that existed to select a nominee without FL/MI? The fact is, both democrats and republicans pick nominees all the time without hearing from millions of voters. Those voters are the ones that stay home and fail to vote on the day and at the place they were given. That's what FL/MI did. And cruel as this may sound, their votes are not needed to pick a candidate.
Here's one for Obama to consider...
Give Hillary FL and MI just as they are. She gets to claim she won all those pledged delegates and popular vote. Now, it goes to the supers who will undoubtely see the FL outcome is being no more than a vague indication of what may have happened and MI as being completely irrelevant (Obama wasn't even on the ballot). Whenever Hillary brags about winning either one of thos states, but especially MI, she'll look like a desperate fool. And whenever someone considers the number of pledged delegates won by the candidates, it'll always be augmented with "...but remember FL and MI".
PA is a closed primary, yes, but there is a deadline to switch parties. Easy enough for the Republicans, Independents, etc to switch registration and vote in Democratic parties and then switch back before the General.
I know, I live here in PA.
You don't have to switch back to republican to vote in the general, which is the point. They have been voting in our primaries and influencing the election all along. I have a serious problem with indpendants and republicans choosing our candidate.
Short-lived and short range "win" because of Obama's lack of appetite for Clinton's trawling the gutter opens him to more smear attacks while he remains above it to define the "new politics" as part of the change we seek. Meanwhile the Right savors the negative perceptions framed by Clinton while she adopts the Right's talking points, including racism and fear-mongering. The Right witholds blows to Clinton because broad distaste for Billary unites a weak and demoralized Republican base, now with their own nominee, crosses over to influence Democratic primaries voting for Clinton. Clinton operates still like she is presumed nominee despite the facts, risking internal breach on the Left, especially if she attempts to "steal" her way in--which appears now like she is more than willing to do. Result of Clinton installation as nominee--fractured Democratic base, weakened message a unified Republican base, stands strengthened by Clinton triangulation, poised to attack Clinton with relish and make mincemeat of her with dirt that Obama wouldn't lower himself to dredge up.
I'm guessing that PA will net Clinton many more than 2 delegates. She has been gaining ground there instead of losing ground to Obama. Remember, PA is a closed primary. There won't be any Indies voting for Obama. Dems only.
Further, I would imagine that Obama will be hurt in PA by the Rev Wright incident.
And, it was reported yesterday that John Edwards will be endorsing Clinton. So, that will change a lot.
Edwards will likely increase her margin in PA. She currently leads by 15%. So, she may end up at 60%.
Edwards has 32 pledged delegates. 26 from his earlier primaries and 6 more from the final round of voting in Iowa. It's too bad Edwards didn't endorse before Iowa had their final caucus because several of his delegates switched to Obama.
The current plan for FL is to use the Jan vote results and give each delegate 1/2 vote which will net Hillary 17 more delgates. So, that's 49 with the ones from Edwards.
MI will likely re-vote. Clinton got 55% there the 1st time. 40% went to uncommitted. With the Edwards endorsement, Clinton would likely pick up whatever Edwards portion of the 40% uncommitted was. Maybe 10%, bringing her up to 65%.
With the addition of FL and MI, comes additional Super Delegates. Who do you think they will be happy with? Clinton, who has been supporting their efforts to get seated? Or, Obama, who has been trying to stop them?
Edwards will help her in WV and KY as well. Both states she is expected to win. But would increase her margins with Edwards. These states are full of miners and mill workers. Do you recall how often Edwards kept saying he is the son of a MILL worker in the debates and campaign? Again, factor in Rev Wright here too.
NC is Edwards home state. Clinton is currently behind by 8 or 9 in NC. Edwards would help with that and might even bring her a win. Factor in Rev Wright here too. I don't believe any of NC Super Delegates have endorsed yet. They were all initially supporting Edwards and I think they have been waiting to hear from him.
Not sure whether Edwards or Rev Wright will help her in Indiana.
Then comes Puerto Rico. Do you recall who is doing better with the Latino vote? Puerto Rico has 55 delegates. Hasn't Clinton been pulling over 65% of the latino vote? Isn't that the threshold that gets you extra delegates in the way dems apportion delegates?
where did you read that edwards is going to endorse clinton? i can't find that anywhere in the news. not to mention that the other posters are right: an endorsement of clinton would betray everything his presidential campaign stood for. then again, most of the electorate can be easily swayed with a good spin.
At this point, nobody cares much about an Edwards endorsement, and he is unpopular in North Carolina and might have lost had he run again for Senator. If he endorses Ms. Corporate Americacn, everything he said in his campaign is untrue.
I can't find any new article suggesting that Edwards is endorsing Hillary. Can you please point me in the direction of your source?
If there's a Michigan re-vote, and there probably won't be, Obama will win handily.
You sure Edward's endorsement will sway his supporters?
I was an Edwards supporter right up to the day he dropped out (though I can't promise Gore wouldn't have poached me), but when he did, I looked at the list of who was left. I'd have loved to support Bill Richardson as well (and today I think he would be the best VP we could choose), but I picked Obama. This was not a sudden swoon, in fact I still haven't visited his web site or joined his friends on MySpace. But...
More and more my support for Barrack is based as much on opposing Hillary as anything else. What she has done has divided the Democratic party and showed us just how Republican the Republican-lite candidate can be.
Before you base your math on the "Edwards endorsed Hillary, so all his supporters will too," keep in mind that we are individuals and vote for ourselves. That is why so many Edwards supporters in Iowa went to Obama. Notably, none went to Clinton. She is losing, and trying to take the party down with her. Someone needs to get her to face facts, and soon.
I guess it all depends on how Edwards states his reasoning for supporting Clinton. And, I agree, it would have been better for Edwards to endorse before Iowa's final vote than after. But, he does still have some in Iowa that stayed with him even after the final vote there.
I don't perceive that Hillary is winning,The media is by letting Hillary call the shots on which states are more important than other states, now the delegates of Florida and Michigan should be seated after she agreed that they would not and superdelegates are more important than delegates and it's okay to go after pledged delegates. she has complained about media bias but is basically running the show. I don't get it
Exactly, they are controlling the entire perception by using the media. She also hasn't gained one super delegate since Feb 5th. Obama has gained about 48. HRC is ALL ABOUT perception, and the American public is forgetful, so its working quite well for her. Not so much at the polls and with super delegates (thank god) but she is still around for this reason only.
Hillary Lieberman McWar Clinton is an expert on make believe and perception.
Pennsylvanians themselves will either decide to get behind some unification in the Democratic Party in this primary of theirs, or to further divide the party, creating more damage to the Dems and enhancing McCain's chances come November.
They CAN give their state to Hillary, but never by enough to give her a lead come convention time. Or, they COULD do what 'the Clintons' have not done, and uplift the party by creating some unity behind the candidate of insurmountable lead, thereby giving the Democrats little or NOTHING to be fighting over at the convention in Denver.
If they did this, John McCain would NOT stand a chance, and November just might belong again to the people ...instead of the corporations.
This PA resident is casting his vote for Hillary. Enough of empty suit candidacy....
Actually, its the media that is controlling the perception. By many accounts, the media wants the Obama/Clinton love fest to go on as long as they can, so you see in print things like Obama's "fragile" lead, and so forth. Combine that with a media that is just plain lazy and too scared of being called bias, and they continue to put forth the myth that "Hillary is on the rebound" or "the Democratic race is close." It really is amazing how they can control the lens through which an issue is viewed. But, if they hadn't played along, we wouldn't have gotten hours of coverage of Nancy Pelosi or the Rev. Wright. I cannot think of a better reason for the superdelegates to shut this down. Either way, just get it done. Everyone seems dead set to watch these two candidates go at each other, including those who could stop it and give the Dem candidate a chance to put up a good showing against McBush.
Clinton's logic is screwy in the states that matter and don't. Sure, we need some of the states that she has won, but many of them are going dem anyway. As to the others, here is why Clinton is so off the mark:
I offer you cherry pie and apple pie, and in a very close decision you decide you like apple pie. So I take away the apple, and put down a plate of rhubarb pie. I then tell you that you like rhubarb more than cherry, to which you disagree. But, by Clinton's logic, if you chose apple, then that means that there is nothing you hate worse than cherry pie and would pick all other pie before it. See the logic? It's just as bad with states as it is with pie.
Nice post, just disagree that Clinton is doing that masterful a job. Mostly the media wants to sit on its collective fat keyster and let the story come to them.
I agree. The media is controlling the perception. Clinton is supplying the disinformation, and that is always more fun to run with than the facts. But the news organizations make big money from the ratings boosts they have gotten. I'm sure at the very least they'd like to drag out the excitement to the May rating period which defines how much $ they can charge advertisers.
I also caught that "fragile" comment from the Associated Press, which is definitely in the tank for Clinton. They were right there front and center when Clinton was throwing her "kitchen sink" at Obama, like SNL and many other news organizations. You will not get objective coverage from them, so cross-reference everything, especially things that might influence your decision. Great post.
From my view, I perceive that Clinton has a recipe full of trans fats that she is trying to sell to a heart attack nation. I am extremely surprised how she is so willing to exploit the underlying divisiveness that exists in America and which is serving to destroy any stability it hopes to achieve to salvage a future that holds something better then the deterioration it is currently experiencing. The xenophobia, crumbling governmental infrastructure, poor education, deconstructing economy, environmental disasters, hate, distrust, anger, and erosion of human rights feeds off of the climate that the Bush Administration's hot air has conjured - and Hillary is also feeding off of this toxicity in the hope of propelling her into a position of power that she is apparently so desparate to acquire where she will pull any and all weapons of divisiveness to get herself there. The Clintons rather claim that Bill was the first black president of America, but the racial prejudice that has oozed from their camp demonstrates that they prefer to keep their symbolic claim since they are more of the same hot air America is currently suffocating in. They truly are in fear of the pure authentic nature that Obama brings - and which America needs now like never before - and because integrity and authenticity is such a rare thing in Washington, they are doing their darnest to make Americans view this new character with suspician - an exotic species not to be trusted. It looks like the public is read for a taste of healthier fare. It isn't a diet - with Obama - it is lifestyle change which will bring a healthier future.
It's way, way simpler than that. If your candidate wins the popular vote of all Democrats, that's your best indication that he/she will do better than the candidate that didn't win the popular vote. That candidate is Barack Obama. Forget the conspiracy theories of Republicans only voting for Obama because they want their party to run against him...there are equal numbers of Republicans voting FOR him because they're sick of the Bush/Clinton dynasty and want a new direction.
That said, if you want to fix your numbers a little, Obama is currently picking up the majority of John Edwards's delegates from Iowa, where Edwards beat Clinton. Obama will most definitely pick up Oregon as well, just from the general consensus from here. He really doesn't need a lot more...Hillary does. Hillary needs a LOT more. Even IF Florida and Michigan were added back in, she'd still have to pick up a big majority there and her history has shown that is just not going to happen. Even if she did win Florida early on, at this point the momentum is behind Obama. There would be a lot of folks who would change their votes accordingly.
The sooner the party gets used to it, the better the chance the Democrats have of taking back the White House.
Looks like someone else made the mistake of actually listening in to the Clinton conference call and accepting it as reality.
Here's what's happened:
1) Obama picked up more delegates in Iowa, thus almost nullifying Hillary's gains in Ohio. She lost Texas as he got more delegates.
2) Nancy Pelosi came out and all but endorsed Obama saying the Party was going to give it to whoever won the most elected delegates. That's Barack Obama.
3) Some Clinton surrogate went on Meet the Press and repeatedly confused Ohio with Iowa.
All in all I'd call that a successful day, or just another day in the Obama campaign.
I think every person who valued democracy should OUTRAGED at the delegate apportionment in Texas. How can one candidate win the popular vote, but another candidate get more delegates. That is rediculous, and an insult to everyone who voted for Hillary. I think once this election is over, we need to scrap the entire Democratic primary process, and come up with winner-take all system, which is the only fair way to apportion the delegates.
They need to get rid of the caucuses and have only primaries. Look at the caucus in Wyoming, they have 60,000 Registered DEMS in the State but only 8,690 voted. If you don't have absentee voting or the time to vote, 8 hours minimum, you don't have democracy. The DEMS should be making it easier to have your voice heard, not more difficult.
If Sen. Clinton only won in caucuses, would you be advocating the same thing?
In addition to flooding the caucus with any person you want. The caucus is not representative of the population. I went to the ME Caucus, and if I didn't tell them that I was from another state, they would have counted me. We also phonebanked and called WY and a lady told us that she was confused as to where her caucus location was. My friend told her and she said "I thought that was true, but the local paper says it's for Obama only." I heard that from several phonebankers.
Pastor Williams,
With all due respect sir, I respectfully disagree with the primary thrust of your article. Could it be sir that you arrived at "your" conclusion because you're a busy man and don't have time to really stay on top of all the news, all the time, everywhere.
Reality is in the eye of the beholder. For me, your article falls short of keeping it real. The method and tactic you say is necessary for one to control reality depends on there being a dumb-downed American public.
With the high voter turnout, I think it is safe to say that voters are certainly informed. The days are over where politicians can control the masses world view. The sleeping giant, USA Voters, are aware, alert and can recognize what's the real deal.
P.S. Why on your blog do you write that you feel it is important that the next president be concerned with the pull-out of private contractors in Iraq and Afgahnistan when troop reduction begins? Why do you put these private contractors on the same level as our beloved soldiers? I would think those private contractors would have enough sense to get the heck out of Dodge when we start our troop withdrawal.
P.S.P.S
Stop the cycle . . . no more Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton
Hillary is winning the perception battle that she is fatally flawed. She wins the perception battle that she is not a woman of her word, that she says one thing and does another and that the rules do not apply to her.
As Tracy Morgan said on SNL when asking what qualifies Hillary to be President:
"If Hillary"s last name wasn"t Clinton she"d be some crazy white lady with too much money and not enough love"n. That"s where I come in. I know women like that and you do not want them on the phone at 3 in the morning."
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/play.shtml?mea=229454
I have to agree with AC. As much as it irks me, I think every Obama supporter should do a little dance everytime Hillary says something like, "the MI vote was fair and it should be honored," or "we are basically tied." People aren't so stupid and uninformed to not know that a race with only one name on the ballot is never fair, or that Obama actually has a sizable lead. Statements like that about little things make her not credible, or what we people here in the real world would call a liar.
Just look at the stories which have come out about her claims of experience. Across the board, lies, lies and more lies.
The Michigan vote was fair, it was Obama's choice to remove his name from the ballot. If he would have left his name on he would have received votes but he decided to DISS the voters instead.
itsbenj and izforever have it right. Perception is one thing, but the reality is that Obama has an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates, not only because he has done well in "Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, and Georgia," etc., but because, under the Party's proportionate delegate allocation system, he has done well everywhere. Obama has kept it close in states he has lost, and he has blown out Clinton in many states he has won, by 20+ and 30+ point margins. He currently is, and at the end of it all will be, the winning candidate amongst the millions of voters participating in the primary/caucus process. This cold hard reality cannot be covered over by spin or manufactured "perceptions," and the day of reckoning with it approaches inexorably as the convention draws nearer.
Even if by some miracle Hillary get's the nomination, she will lose the General election. Young people and blacks are not going to come out in droves to support her after this bitter battle.
It is sad that perception is winning Senator Clinton votes, rather than the history of her experience. To those who remember what she did to Billy Dale for instance and Vincent Foster, she and her followers 'inspire horror and disgust'. Does no one remember Bill was impeached and why? Do they not remember her Rose Law firm? Do they not remember Bill Clinton's pardons? This is not yesterday when, we, the people were limited to television and newspapers for information, we have the internet. I knew nothing about Bill's Arkansas scandals and favortism to his campaign donors. I do now. I also know Hillary is lying in her speeches. Do her supporters not remember her saying she will continue to take lobbyists money because "like it or not those lobbyists are real Americans"? Is Hoffman-La Roche CEO's US citizens? Sad day for the USA that known corruption is allowed to run for President and the press she claims is too hard on her, aids and abets them in their lust for power.
Posted March 16, 2008 | 07:40 PM (EST)