Hello and welcome to Back Alley Media.

Just Saying…

Re: all the “In It to Win It?” posts, “Tom Brokaw Says Obama has 50 More Superdelegates in His Back Pocket,” who are “ready to go before too long.” I’d be surprised if Hillary picks up even one (okay, maybe one — you know what I mean…)

UPDATE: AFL-CIO set to endorse? Says “over-riding focus is on Nov. 4…” Just saying!

UPDATE2: Dean warns against prolonged primary. Just saying!

UPDATE3: This guy and agrees with me, and reminds us (as does this guy) that Obama has waited until after the primaries to release his February fundraising number. Just saying!

UPDATE4: Expect to see more of these downright brutal articles in the days ahead — “Hillary’s Math Problem: Forget tonight. She could win 16 straight and still lose.” (via TPM)

UPDATE5: Kinda unrelated to the larger point, but Hillary Clinton wins the Chutzpah Award for this gem: “Never underestimate the intelligence of the voter.” No caveats, from what I can tell, about big/important states, caucuses, and African-Americans (bless their hearts!)…

UPDATE6: Obama picks up three more superdelegates.  Just saying!

Posted on 4 March '08 by Sebastian, under Uncategorized.

5 Comments to “Just Saying…”

#1 Posted by Dillon (04.03.08 at 13:50 )

All right, all right. So the question that’s starting to bug me is one of appearances. We all know the math is against her, we all know she has little hope of actually winning on pledged delegates right now. But if a bunch of superdelegates flock to Obama and try to pressure her out of the race, what will it _look_ like to all those people who (when polled) said they wanted the race to continue - especially if she wins one or more big states tonight? Could the party be damaged by _seeming_ to be heavy-handed and autocratic, even when it’s not?

#2 Posted by Suzanne (04.03.08 at 13:56 )

Yep, that’s what I’m saying. And the Clinton camp will know the math, and know that winning for them would only come at the cost of WWIII in the party, but they’ll stoke the fire on “not shutting down the vote.” That’s why it really helps to have two candidates who are good sports. It seems pretty clear that if Hillary is determined NOT to be a good sport, she’ll be able to must the diehards to wage the war with her. That’s my fear.

#3 Posted by Sebastian (04.03.08 at 14:11 )

you refer to the clinton “diehards” waging war — i much prefer the term “dead-enders”…

the poll numbers are by far her strongest card, and believe me, they will become her crutch in the next few days. however, as the argument over her staying in plays out (for the first time), the poll numbers will plummet because I have to believe that the math is too obvious. not to mention the superdelegates changing the math by the day in obama’s favor…

#4 Posted by Suzanne (04.03.08 at 14:15 )

In fact, the Clintons are so totally out for themselves, I’d rank their priorities like this:

1) Win, by any means possible
2) damage Obama so even if he gets the nomination, they’ve helped McCain crush him. That way, Clinton can run again in 2012 and won’t have to wait eight years for another turn.

Of course — option 2 only works if they don’t damage their political capital in the process. Sebastian probably would say they can’t pull off #2 without reuining their own standing in the process. I hope that’s true. But so far they seemed to have rallied a “fight on” base.

#5 Posted by Sebastian (04.03.08 at 15:24 )

there’s the self-calculating component, for sure, which i’d agree with you 100% on… I guess I just have more confidence in the ability of others to exert their own influence upon the clintons’ will.