Superdelegates Or Bust
The tone of this afternoon's call with Clinton advisers Penn/Wolfson/Cecil was unusually grim following HRC’s 2/12 walloping. The day's spin -- that all delegates matter and should be counted, superdelegates, too -- seemed to ignore the contest's current trendlines and the deep hunger many voters have expressed for a new kind of politics.
"We don't make distinctions between certain kinds of delegates," Wolfson emphasized.
Well, that's nice that you guys don't make distinctions. But the difference between the two categories of delegates is becoming ever clearer to voters. Last night, Gov. Eliot Spitzer, an HRC supporter, was on The Colbert Report, of all shows, explaining to the show's younger audience that superdelegates (who he joked don’t wear capes and tights) are a legit part of the process.
Prominent Dems (see Donna Brazile) have said, of course, that allowing a final decision on the nom to be made by a cabal of governors, members of Congress and party hangers-on would be not just bad for the Dems' populist message but a knock on democracy.
So having lost eight straight primaries and caucuses, here is HRC’s team still hammering home that they can claim victory on the backs of these super special delegates, who were not created to break a tie between two mainstream candidates but to prevent a fringe operator from stealing the nom.
Today’s call made me wonder for the first time: Is this all the Clinton team has left to peddle? That with some creative math, she's still the likely nom.
Sure, technically speaking, by adding in those superdelegates the contest is tight. And with contests pending in WI, TX, OH and PA, there are still enough delegates in play, (should Clinton win big in those states). But cosmically, the HRC team line -- superdelegates or bust -- feels out of touch with the already expressed desires of those voters turning to Obama. Obfuscation is out in 2008.
Obama last night in Madison, Wisc., touched on the very matter that the Clinton folks seem to be missing: “We can’t keep playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and somehow expect a different result – because it’s a game that ordinary Americans are losing. We are going to put this game to an end.”
Why wouldn’t Clinton, potentially faced with an uphill climb, try the unexpected – even if it’s politically risky? She could say, ‘We’re going to fight hard in these upcoming primaries, we are going to make our case for my experience and judgment and proposals, and we’ll let the voters decide. Superdelegates, be damned, let’s take them off the table. This election is about you.’
Maybe that move, of all her campaign’s machinations, would inspire a second look from voters. Winning at all cost can never really be winning if the hearts of the people are lost in the process.
(JENNIFER SKALKA)
Join the Discussion
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus