Posts
"The Clinton campaign had nobody on the payroll to call superdelegates in March 2007. People didn't know about superdelegates, a high-ranking Clinton staff member said. Nobody figured it out. They thought it was all about winning states and not delegates."
If Barack Obama was doing such a better job at calling and getting super delegates, how come Hillary Clinton had over a one hundred super delegate lead at the beginning of the race? How can we trust your journalistic intelligence in deciding what quotes to use and therefore validate, and what quotes not to use, when you use questionable quotes in your articles?
Just because a "staffer" says it, doesn't make it an accurate statement, but you quote and cite statistically inaccurate comments about super delegates as fact. There is also no mention made of "donations" made to some of these super delegates (and pledged delegates) by the Barack Obama camp, especially the ones that changed their vote to Barack Obama even though Hillary Clinton won their congressional district or state.
Quote from the article...
We were the earliest to staff up and open offices there, and the first six states we staffed were caucus states. That was a strategic decision. The Obama campaign liked caucus states, which place a high value on organization."
This is another amazingly misleading quote. We can interpret the above quote to mean, "Why try and earn more votes from the masses when we can get a better overall deal from the caucuses and the much lower voter turnout? For you to complement this caucus strategy as being "superior" to Hillary Clinton's method of going for the most overall voters is why there is a disconnect between Barack Obama and 30% of the Clinton voters.
The Barack Obama camp placed high value on the caucus states because the risk reward was in their favor. Caucuses produce lower voter turnout percentages that are as much as 88% lower than the primaries. Translation, it is easier to win a disproportionate amount of delegates in the caucus states than it is in the primaries because of the volatility of lower numbers of voters.
Did you consider that some people aren't impressed by "Amazing Race" and "Survivor" style of politicking? Guess what, some of us actually like and respect a candidate that wants to win as many votes as possible while staying on message, aka Hillary Clinton.
Quote from the article...
"The Obama campaign, it should be pointed out, did not actually foresee the future; it merely prepared for it."
When Hillary Clinton was leading in the super delegate race by over a hundred delegates, Dan Abrams of MSNBC floated out the idea that super delegates shouldn't decide the race. So on the one hand, Barack Obama's camp did not forsee the future, yet the media still made the case that it would be unfair if Hillary Clinton won the race via the super delegate vote, she could not win via Florida and Michigan because she agreed not to count them, and you seem intent on saying Clinton blew it in the caucus states and that 1.1 million voters supercede the results of over 35 million voters. Hillary Clinton actually won MORE pledged delegates from all the primary states, even when Florida and Michigan are not counted! Claiming that Hillary Clinton ran a poor race is silly when she actually won more pledged delegates than Barack Obama did from the primary states (even when Florida and Michigan are not counted).
Someone at Politico.com chose to come up with the "Whiny Babies" headline. which camouflages what your article is about. Your article makes a case for winning the democratic battle even if it weakens the case for winning the Presidential war. It is YOUR OPINION that winning the democratic battle even if it weakens the chances of winning the presidential war is a superior campaign plan. 30% of Hillary Clinton supporters wholeheartedly disagree that winning the battle matters more than winning the war.
Ever heard of "Fair Reflection"?
Don't be surprised if Barack Obama wins the democratic battle but loses the presidential war...and don't blame Hillary Clinton supporters if Barack Obama loses this fall when all Hillary Clinton supporters wanted to win was the candidate that ran a more straight forward campaign, something that you seem to think of as being old school.
Barack Obama's side has been clever, and they may have even crossed the line legality in the caucus states. Being clever at the expense of 18 million voters makes me wonder just how clever Barack Obama really was.
Quote from the article...
"Some caucus states were outside of Hillary’s political orbit. They were in the West, the Great Plains, the Rocky Mountains. Hillary’s strength tended to be more East Coast and West Coast.”
I can't even fathom how to respond to such an absurd comment. Hillary Clinton won contiguous states that touch each other all the way across the country from the South Western coast (California) all the way to the North Eastern coast (New York) including virtually ALL the swing states, plus Florida, Michigan and South Dakota. Barack Obama did not win contiguous states that span across the entire country, lol, because Hillary Clinton DID! Look at the map below.
"Some caucus states were outside of Hillary’s political orbit. They were in the West, the Great Plains, the Rocky Mountains. Hillary’s strength tended to be more East Coast and West Coast.”
Notice how Mr. Simon changes the topic from the real issue, which is that older folks have more built in responsibilities and some physical limitation and as a result can't travel as far or at a specific time of day, especially in the MIDDLE OF WINTER.
As you can see from the map, Hillary's popularity spanned across the entire country, not just east and west, as Mr. Simon implies. All of those great plains and Rocky Mountain caucus "victories" for Barack Obama had polls taken just prior to their caucuses and Hillary Clinton was either tied or leading against Barack Obama. Fair Reflection, what is Fair Reflection?
-Alessandro Machi
