Obama: Not Having to Say Victory

Most days on the campaign trail have a main theme -- "Michigan/Florida," "Reverend Wright," "bluecollar voters hate Obama," etc. The theme of the day is important, because in the absence of truly remarkable breaking news, news editors generally use what they perceive as "what today's about" in deciding how to allocate their reporters, which stories to run, etc. Before the advent of MSM blogs, the theme of the day often was stated succinctly in the first sentences, or "lede", written by the AP and UPI wire service reporters, whose short dispatches throughout the day showed up on press tickers in newsrooms around the country several hours earlier than the fuller stories written by various campaign reporters. Many editors began planning their page layouts and headlines based on these wire service ledes, expecting their own reporters to file stories that expanded on that theme.

Now, many reporters are expected to file their own opening dispatches to outlet blogs, like the Chicago Tribune's "The Swamp," and then follow up with full-blown pieces on the day's events. And, of course, both broadcast and print media can file stories, change page layouts, etc. much more quickly than they could in the days of hand-laid lead type. But the theme of the day is still relatively common -- and the campaigns do their best to take control of each day's coverage by pushing the theme that's helpful to them, using press releases, press conference calls, private talks with reporters, interviews on TV news shows, and new words inserted into the candidates' standard speeches.

Yesterday, the Clinton campaign tried to pre-spin the results of today's Oregon and Kentucky primaries, which by all accounts will finally give Barack Obama the majority of democratically chosen "pledged" delegates and strengthen his argument to superdelegates that a decent respect for democracy requires them to ratify the choice of Democratic voters. The theme Clinton tried to plant is that the race isn't over, and that an overeager Obama presumptuously and insultingly intended to "declare victory" immediately after the Oregon and Kentucky contests even though he technically will not yet have earned a majority of all delegates (pledged and super combined).

The problem is, the Clinton camp's pre-spin was based on a week-old blog post, and ignored repeated statements by both Obama and his representatives that they had no intention of "declaring victory" or calling the campaign over until the combined delegate count clinched the nomination.

In a post on May 8 titled "Obama plans to declare victory May 20," Politico's David Paul Kuhn cited an unnamed Obama insider for the news that "Not long after the polls close in the May 20 Kentucky and Oregon primaries, Barack Obama plans to declare victory in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination... It's a train wreck waiting to happen, with one candidate claiming to be the nominee while the other vigorously denies it."

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton reiterated that claim, telling supporters at a campaign event in Kentucky that "None of us is going to have the number of delegates we're going to need to get to the nomination, although I understand my opponent and his supporters are going to claim that." And yesterday morning, Clinton's Communications Director, Howard Wolfson, issued a press release that cited the Politico post and accused Obama of having a "plan to declare himself the Democratic nominee tomorrow night in Iowa."

The Clinton camp's declarations went beyond a plea to the media not to declare the race over. The focus was directly on Obama, and not in the kinder, gentler terms that have characterized her campaign in the last week or two. Wolfson's press release yesterday amped up the tension between the campaigns and risked driving an even deeper wedge between Obama and the Clinton supporters he needs to beat McCain in November, by calling Obama's supposed plan "a slap in the face to the millions of voters in the remaining primary states and to Senator Clinton's 17 million supporters." Wolfson even compared Obama to George W. Bush, titling his press release "Mission Accomplished? Not so fast" and writing, "Premature victory laps and false declarations of victory are unwarranted. Declaring mission accomplished does not make it so."

All of which might be fair -- merely tough campaigning -- if there actually were evidence that Obama intended to "declare victory" tonight. But there's not. If anything, the Obama campaign has gone out of its way to make clear that while it considers today's contests a milestone, it adamantly is not declaring victory yet.

Signs that Obama might not actually have intended to declare outright "victory" can be seen in the very post the Clinton campaign cited in yesterday's press release, where Kuhn qualified his news with the observation that " the nature of that declaration of victory is 'still developing,' in the [unnamed] advisor's words."

And in fact the Obama camp has made it clear since then that it has no intention of declaring "Mission Accomplished" tonight:

For example, in a press conference call on May 12 to announce the endorsement of former DNC Chair Roy Romer, which I reported here on OffTheBus, a reporter directly asked Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, whether the campaign would "declare victory" tonight. Plouffe couldn't have been clearer: while winning the majority of elected delegates would be "an important moment" that would reflect "the will of the voters," he added definitively that "we're definitely not going to declare victory... we still have three contests after that." He went on to say that the campaign was focused on the total delegate count, not just the pledged delegate count: "Our focus is on getting to that 2,025 number as quickly as we can."

On Sunday, the day before Wolfson's and Clinton's "Mission Accomplished" smear, the Chicago Tribune's Jim Tankersley reported that Obama told donors at Portland's University Club the race wouldn't be over tonight:

Obama predicted a victory in Oregon, and said he believed the resulting delegate haul would "put us over the top," adding: "We will be able to say we have won a majority. But we have a lot of work to do ahead of us."

He said to win in November would require a unified Democratic Party, adding: "That means all of you have to be nice to Clinton supporters."

And in the wee hours of yesterday morning -- 4:37 a.m. Eastern time, to be precise, before Clinton delivered her speech accusing Obama of planning to declare victory and before Wolfson clicked "send" on his emailed press release accusing Obama of declaring "Mission Accomplished" -- Politico itself confirmed that its original story no longer held true. Under the bold headline "Obama: No victory declaration Tuesday," Carrie Budoff Brown wrote:

Concerned about appearing presumptuous or antagonistic towards Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama will not declare victory in the Democratic nomination fight Tuesday in the event he wins enough pledged delegates to claim a majority.

Rather, he'll tiptoe right up to the line, without explicitly asserting the race is over.

While it may sound like an exercise in hair-splitting, the conscious decision not to declare victory is a revealing measure of the sensitivity surrounding overtures that appear to disrespect Clinton and her supporters.

So for a week and a half the Obama campaign has been saying, clearly and publicly, that while tonight's milestone will be significant it won't be the end of the race and that they don't intend to declare victory yet. And despite all those disclaimers, both Clinton and her top advisor shotgunned every political reporter in the nation yesterday with a claim -- based on an eleven-day-old, now-disproved blog post -- that Obama was about to insult Clinton's supporters by declaring victory.

Either no one in the Clinton campaign is paying even halfhearted attention to the news media or to their opponent's official statements -- which would suggest that they're skipping the front page these days and flipping straight to the employment classifieds -- or that Clinton's media managers are so desperate that they're issuing press releases datelined "land of make-believe" and hoping, just hoping, that no one in the entire mainstream press or blogosphere is actually paying them enough attention to catch their mistakes. Neither explanation augurs well for Clinton.

She's dressed up a straw Obama in George Bush's flight suit, stuck an old newspaper under its arm, pointed to a fading article, sounded the rebel yell -- and still lost.

It's bad enough for her that she's been unable to defeat Obama. Now it seems she can't even beat his scarecrow. And perhaps worse, it's yet another mistake in a cascading series of errors her campaign has been making, that suggests how badly things are spinning out of control.

The truth is that winning the majority of democratically elected delegates is victory. Obama has won the election, which in a democracy means winning the nomination. This isn't a case where three candidates have split the vote so that none has a majority (in which case the superdelegates would play an indispensable role in breaking the deadlock and giving the nominee an apparent majority to carry him into the general election). It's a two-candidate race, and Obama won.

Are there still undeclared superdelegates? Doesn't matter, because the superdelegates will, in the end, simply ratify the candidate the voters chose. They'll do this for any of several dozen good reasons -- ranging from a sincere love of democracy, to the self-interested calculation that they'll be run out of office on a rail if they presume to override the voters' choice and their candidate loses to McCain -- but they'll do it. Everyone understands that, except for a few dead-enders who confuse feminism with chauvinism and fault Obama for failing to open Clinton's door for her and lay his jacket over the political mud so she can walk cleanly ahead of him to the nomination without mussing her oh-so-blue-collar Ferragamos.

Clinton should have learned enough about Obama's nature by now to realize his campaign has too much tactical wisdom and that he has too much class to rub her face in a reality she should be able to see for herself. If nothing else, Clinton should have realized this about Obama's nature by this point. He will declare tonight, correctly, that he passed a significant democratic milestone; but he's not going to declare he's won the nomination. He doesn't need to. He'll show courtesy to Clinton -- and everyone with a belief in small-d democracy, or able to do simple math with a pencil stub on the back of an envelope, will declare his victory on his behalf.

Comments

[gala1]

Obama should decide whether he wants to be the first black candidate to lose or the first black Vice-President.
Hillary isn't his impediment. She's his his way up to the next step.

A Clinton-Obama ticket probably won't lose.An Obama-Anybody ticket probably won't win.

At which point will the Obamabots start considering that Obama isn't ultimately running against Clinton, but against John McCain?
Being the candidate doesn't mean a whole lot if you aren't the winner.

And so who is it that is supposed to end up voting for Obama?


Do you seriously think that people who voted TWICE for Bush and rejected both Dean and Kerry as too peculiar to suit a predictably American mind-set are going to vote ONCE for Obama?
And why should they?

He has nothing tangible to offer them other than ambition followed up by bad judgement.
If he can't even control the extraordinary way his supporters have managed to permanently turn off a great number of Democrats who preferred Hillary and will vote McCain or write-in, how can he be expected to co-operate with a Congress that doesn't include affirmative action and on the job training as part of their responsibility.


It's not what you or I want that will win. It's what the middle will carry.

.I'm writing in Hillary. I would in this election even if she were a plaid hermaphrodite.
She is simply and logically the best of the three choices.

gala1

[M.S. Bellows, Jr. - Huffpost Blogger]

Do you expect that she will win with only write-in votes? If not -- and after witnessing what happened when people voted for Nader in 2000 because it felt good even though it wasted their vote --and knowing what's at stake in this election -- why would you cast your vote in November for someone who's not on the ballot and therefore cannot win?

[Gemma08]

Still writing in Hillary?

Like her, you have no class. Bet you voted for Bush twice.

[Americanium]

Yeah ?? you might as well put your ballot and throw it in the Ocean. However if that is somehow therapeutic for you..Be my guest.

[Fabienne]

I would be interested in hearing some Clinton supporters who say they will not vote for Obama address the issues on which they disagree with him.

[M.S. Bellows, Jr. - Huffpost Blogger]

So would I. Specifically, why they would rather McCain be in office -- and appoint 2 or more Justices -- than Obama; ie, not why they prefer Clinton to Obama, but why they don't prefer Obama to McCain.

[M.S. Bellows, Jr. - Huffpost Blogger]

I'd also love to hear some Clinton supporters explain why they would prefer McCain to Obama, with particular attention to the Supreme Court. That sounds like snark, but it's not: it's a sincere question.

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

These people are not Clinton supporters. They do not represent Clinton supporters. They are mostly GOP operatives. The few that aren't from "chaos" are diehards who would have never voted for Obama anyway.

If they don't care about Roe V Wade or the fact that McCain was against being able to sue for equal wages, then they aren't really Clinton supporters. They will never discuss why McCain is better than Obama. If they point to the middle or start talking about Obama being too "left", then you know they are GOP - like gala1.

[gala1]

It's not what you want.
Or, I as a Clinton supporter, want.
It's what the middle demographic will find acceptable .

Obamabots carry on endlessly about how their opposition is either racist , antediluvian or apostately determined not to be True Believers.
But the real problem for them lies in the fact that Obama is not running against Clinton but McCain.

Why in wartime and time of economic crisis could you expect the general public to vote for Obama?

They've got McCain -personable, witty and a charmer where Obama is stiff, awkward and remote.
They've got a war hero that came out victorious through nightmares against a guy who rhetoricizes about dreams and is the product of academic privilege.

They've got a senator whose time in Congress began before Obama ever became an adult.
Obama has nothing tangible except his ambition.
No accomplishments other than being marketed.

McCain's genially Reaganesque reach manages to cover his war-mongering and being a corporate shill. He's solid and safe and predictable.
He'll win.

It's not Clintonistas that are your problem.
It's the real world.

All you've got in Obama is a Kerry re-tread.
It's Kerry in a Hurry.

Since I'm in a flyover place and am curious about outcomes , every instance of listening to what people want out here is resigning themselves 3 or 5 to one for McCain.

They'd rather have Hillary.
But you will rather have the usual niche candidate no one can relate to that will lose ..
Again.


gala1

[FogCityJohn]

Yeah, Obama is such a "niche candidate" that "no one can relate to" that he's winning the Democratic primary against Clinton. I guess the almost 2 million people who have donated to his campaign just can't relate to him either.

gala1 = Hillary Dead-Ender

[blaqntelligence]

And you are just angry that your candidate , with all of her "formidable" political clout, couldn't beat an unknown.
Pontificate all you want.....
Blow hot air all you please.....
She lost.....
Obama won.....
You can choose to stay home in November.....
Nevertheless. January 9, 2009 Senator Barack Obama will don the mantle of Mr. President.

[S1m0n]

"I wish I could be more charitable to Hillary and her handlers..."

Funny you should mention it. Hillary keeps showing her teeth and snarling whenever there's a hint that someone might declare the race over, because that'll blow the gaff on her attempt to fundraise enough cash from her suckers (err, backers) to pay back the 11 million bucks she owes herself. She has to pretend that sending her money isn't a completely wasteful and futile act, and that means pretending that the money could still enable her to win.

Call it an act of charity: poor white high-school educated folks passing the hat and holding bake sales for a needy millionaire.

[S1m0n]

Far from "insulting" Hillary's supporters, an Obama declaration would protect them from fleeced by Hillary Clinton.

Hillary is still fundraising by selling a lie; namely the fantasy that there's any point to sending Hillary more money. There isn't; no matter how much money Hillary takes in at this point, she can't win. She's ripping her funders off.

Which, ultimately, is the reason she's being SO defensive about the race not being over yet: she's making sure that no one blows the gaff. Hillary has 11 million reasons to keep on ffleecing the suckers.

[artgal]

Im a Hillary supporter but I would like her to concede. She's not going to do that I fear so there is only one way to stop her and that is for the required amount of Superdelegates to state their support for Obama - If an overwhelming number of them do so - this thing is over. I cannot understand everyone
expecting Hillary to quit - its obvious she isnt going to do so - but the Democrats have the ability to end this - the question is - why dont they?

[NABNYC]

The Clintons aren't silly. They are strategic and ruthless. Here's the current phase of the campaign: (1) accuse everyone who asks Hillary to get out of the way of trying to stop Americans from voting; (2) accuse everyone who says Obama has won of being sexist; (3) accuse everyone who says Obama has won of hating the people of Florida and Michigan; (4) attack Obama in advance, and say that if he declares victory when he wins, then he is a sexist anti-democratic dog. And it worked.

Why are the Clintons so insistent that no one can say Obama has won? Because they plan to steal the nomination. First, she plans to finish out her triumphant march to the sea by "taking" Puerto Rico then insisting she's got the momentum. Next, in the rules committee they will demand the Florida and Michigan delegations be seated per the vote or, if not, a re-vote be held. In the meantime her inners are gathering enough money to re-stock Ft. Knox, and will take that to the convention, offer it to the party if Hillary gets the nomination, but be clear that there will not be one penny contributed if Obama does. She's going to buy the nomination. That's why no one can say Obama won.

[Fabienne]

Senator Clinton no longer has the power to take the nomination.

[DyKing]

It's rather telling that whites who are generally uneducated, and not so smart, vote overwhelmingly for Sen Clinton in WV and Kentucky. A significant number of them are openly racist; others use 'code words' to express their racism. It is disturbing that someone with the progressive credentials of Sen Clinton has to court these bigots in some delusional attempt to secure the democratic nomination. She praises them for 'keeping her in the race.' The MSM, generally speaking, is unwilling to discuss this issue - bigotry in the democratic party, especially in Apalachia - preferring, instead, to repeat the dishonest claim that "Obama is not connecting with white working-class Americans." He will never connect with those bigots. They will prefer to vote against their interests than vote for the black guy. As David Gergen said last night on CNN, wouldn't it be an classy, gracefull, highminded, principled (my words; I'm paraphrasing here) if Sen Clinton, on her way out, would take on the issue of racism in the Democratic party, rebuke the bigots, and tell them that if they won't vote for Obama because he is black, they she doesn't want their votes, and would not want to win that way? But we know she won't do that, and if she want to, it's too late now since the Apalachian (bigotry) primaries just concluded yesterday.

[tyrdofwaitin]

Pardon me, I lost a few bits:

Hillary: Politician Par Excellence of the 20th Century.

[tyrdofwaitin]

I wish I could be more charitable to Hillary and her handlers, but anyone who can't get off the track when the race is over I call a pig:a pig for the spotlight, a pig for the news cycle, a pig for adoration and affirmation from the multitude of her supporters and a pig par excellence, at metric magic.

That Hillary cannot be nominated is the worst kept secret in the world today --- except for Hillary. And although I've accused Pres. Bush of being an Emperor without clothes over time, I believe she has joined him as the Empress without clothes --- and equally unappealing.

Frankly, I feel compassion for the legions of women for whom she was to be a role model for the 21st century. Hillary has not served them well; she(and her feminist cohorts) have coveted women as if ONLY SHE can show them the way out of the bondage of sexism. As a counter, she's tried to demonize Obama as some kind of sexist pig. Well you know what, I'd trust Obama to deal with men and WOMEN more respecffully that she. By any means necessary, Hillary, means you've you'll step on and over any one or any principle you have too. It's all about Hillary.

The irony of all this is that her legion of supporters will not vent their disappointment in Hillary at her; they will prefer, with Hillary's encouragement, to scapegoat Obama, the media, sexism and....

Hillary: Par Excellence Politician of the

[Testtubebaby]

I despise her, her campaign and some of her supporters so much after these last few primaries. I tried not to really feel that emotion towards her but she has proven to be a pill no one should want to swallow.

[M.S. Bellows, Jr. - Huffpost Blogger]

One phenomenon I see happening regularly is Clinton supporters branding as "sexism" comments that I personally doubt the speaker intended that way. For instance, when Obama said, somewhat dismissively, "you're likable enough, Hillary," some folks saw sexism, whereas I saw merely a glimmer of enmity or distaste based on how she's acted in the campaign, not based on her gender.

One way to help diminish this is to avoid terms that predictably could be misconstrued. "Pig" is one of those. Originally it was used by feminists against men (remember "male chauvinist pig"?), but now that obesity bias has become a feminist issue, it has become an off-limits word for describing women.

"Hog" isn't so loaded -- and is the traditional word used for people who hoard things, anyway -- hogging the spotlight, for example.

[S1m0n]

"I wish I could be more charitable to Hillary and her handlers..."

Funny you should mention it. Hillary keeps showing her teeth and snarling whenever there's a hint that someone might declare the race over, because that'll blow the gaff on her attempt to fundraise enough cash from her suckers (err, backers) to pay back the 11 million bucks she owes herself. She has to pretend that sending her money isn't a completely wasteful and futile act, and that means pretending that the money could still enable her to win.

Call it an act of charity: poor white high-school educated folks passing the hat for a millionaire.

[Fabienne]

Pigs are fine animals, clean and intelligent. Let's not use them as models for someone we don't admire.

[tyrdofwaitin]

This is an aha! moment for me S1mon: I never thought of that angle; God, how low can you go?

[ThatSharkeyGeezer]

Wait, wait.... it's NOT OVER YET!!!

Because, as WarScribe explains over on politico.com:

"...if you add two states where the votes weren"t supposed to count and ignore four states which haven"t yet released their figures but where the votes did count and then, of course, conveniently forget the fact that in one of the states that she wants you to count, no one else was on the ballot " she is one-third of one percent ahead."

So, as Hillary says, "This is a really, really, really close race!!! And we can still win!!! So I'm not going to stop until he offers me the VP ticket!!"

Let's hear it for Hillary and Her Fantasy Math!!!!

[cam]

If Hillary can keep her expenditure below her income for the next three contests then she can chisel away at some of her debt. She has been running on empty for a while, but her income stops the day she stops running. She is not running for election, she is running to settle her debts.

[SethBLiNK]

She'll act like this, allowing her campaign to make a mess of things, whipping up her supporters so they can never be won back, and then cry sexism when she doesn't get added to the ticket as VP. With so many articles about her being VP I have to assume she wants it. If that's so, now is the time for her to prove she can be a team player. Stay in the race, but play fair.

[terramartom]

Clinton degrades women in a way that is damaging for the future. This race for her is equivilant to a football team losing in the first play-off game yet demanding to play in the Super Bowl!
She is so arrogant to think that the World will collapse without her. Her vote for the Irac War, her vote for NAFTA, her husband taking $800,000.00 from Columbia for a trade agreement she says she opposes and her Bosnia lie of dogging bullets demonstrates that she is willing to do absolutely anything for power, regardless if it is legal, ethical or common sense. Finally her degrading comments about race so as to divide the Democratic Party just shows how bitter and resentful a women can get. The sad part is that women are not for Clinton because she is the best candidate, but "ONLY" because she is a women. HOLY SHIT!!!

[MrKnuckles]

I'm sorry, but it is quite clear now, with all due respect aside, that Hillary is only running, and still amassing a monumental campaign debt, to try and insure that Obama and the Democratic Party will lose the Presidential election this coming November. What other good reason does she have for putting herself in 30 million plus debt?
The idea that she cares one bit about the remaining primary voters getting their chance to let their voices be heard is miserable hogwash. She has long ago given up respecting the tally of elected delegates, which is a direct result of such voters speaking their minds, and who are now clearly shouting out, "You've Lost Hillary!".
She has also given up trying to further any positives of her early campaign, except of course, if you're inclined to regard being divisive and negative toward Obama as being a big ol' plus for her and the Democrats in general.
Go Home Hillary, you skunk!

[washington31]

WE ARE DEMS FOR CHRIST SAKE! LET'S COME TOGETHER. Instead of handing McSame the White House on a Platinum platter!