by Mark Silva
After three months of primary voting, the protracted contest between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could be left to someone else: The “super-delegates’’ to the Democratic National Convention who can cast their votes at will.
Clinton’s victories in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday have halted Obama’s momentum after an 11-state winning streak that added one more in the tiny state of Vermont on Tuesday, but apparently did not alter the balance of pledged delegates.
Obama holds a narrow advantage in that pledged delegate count, and Clinton would have to amass massive victories in the party’s remaining contests to overcome that. Yet, neither appears likely to collect the number of delegates needed for nomination in the remaining primaries and caucuses through early June.
“We have pledged delegates, the delegates that come because of the results of elections and caucuses… and we have the super-delegates,’’ Clinton said this morning on NBC’s Today Show.
“Now that the race is really joined… voters are looking at this as more of a hiring decision,’’ Clinton said, pressing the campaign theme that she has used against Obama on the road. “At the end of the day, it’s not about speeches as much as it is solutions… It’s about toughness and decisions… People are super-delegates for a purpose. They are to exercise their judgment… based on what will lead to the best nominee.’’
Obama, following Clinton on the morning-after news-show circuit, was asked if Clinton might be “stealing’’ the nomination with a super-delegate strategy. No, he said – and he voiced confidence that his own numbers will carry the contest for him.
“Sen. Clinton barely dented the delegate count yesterday,’’ Obama said. “This contest is ultimately going to be about who has the most delegates.
“No, I don’t think it would be stealing the nomination,’’ he said. “She can try to persuade the super-delegates to support her… I think most Democrats will feel like whoever won the most votes and caucuses should end up being the nominee… I think it is perfectly within her rights to try to persuade them,’’ he said, noting that in the last few weeks, “we have picked up scores of super-delegates… She has lost them.’’
The two face a long, indecisive period until the next big-state contest, Pennsylvania’s, on April 22, punctuated by only minor contests in the week ahead.
In that time, Obama will attempt to convince the party’s super-delegates, and the broader Democratic voting public as well, that his advantage over Clinton – more states won, more of the popular vote in the primary – makes him the electable one in a contest with the Republican Party’s candidate, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
. And in that time, Clinton will try to convince the super-delegates that her advantage – bigger states won, New York and California, Ohio and Texas, plus her experience in Washington – make her the electable one.
And in that time, the GOP’s nominee will be driving home the case that he is the one with the experience to pick up that “red phone’’ that Clinton so effectively turned on Obama during the last few days of the contest in Texas, where Clinton’s TV ads posed the question of who people want to answer the White House hotline at 3 a.m.
McCain will bask in the aura of the presidency today, when President Bush receives him at the front door of the White House – and Democrats will attempt to wrap McCain in the failures of a president whose public approval rests in the low 30s.
And Clinton will continue to press a theme in her contest with Obama that may have proved decisive in the big-state contests of Ohio and Texas this week.
“I think that voters are finally focused on who they think would be the best commander-in-chief and who can turn this economy around,’’ Clinton said today. “I think, now that Sen. McCain is the Republican nominees, Democratic voters are taking their decision very seriously… I think they are asking hard questions.
“In recent history, no one has ever been elected president who did not win their party’s primary in Ohio,’’ Clinton said. “I think I proved convincingly last night that I’m the one who can win Ohio’’ and who can win the presidency.
Obama was asked why Democrats now appear “reluctant’’ to support him.
“I don’t think they’re reluctant,’’ he said. “We’ve had a very tough contest, and Sen. Clinton is a terrific, hard-working candidate… We won 11 in a row, which is why we have this lead in the delegates…. We feel confident that by the time we get to the convention we are going to have the most delegates.’’
What about Clinton’s big-state claim?
“We have more of the popular vote. We have won more primaries, more caucuses,’’ Obama said. “Sen. Clinton and her campaign have tended to cherry-pick which states they think are important.’’
What about that question of experience?
“She has been making this argument since the beginning of this contest and if it was a particularly effective ‘’ argument, he said. “When she runs this 3 a.m. phone call ad she doesn’t cite and cant cite any experience that makes her more’’ qualified. “If she thinks that longevity in Washington is the primary criteria for winning the White House, then John McCain is going to beat her.’’
• 
• 
• 
Comments
I believe we have two great candidates. At least we won't have to hold our nose as we vote.
Posted by: bill "hussein" r. | March 5, 2008 7:57 AM
Speak for yourself Bill R, if the nominee is Hillary, I'm skipping the prez election. My conscience won't let me vote for that b****.
Posted by: syj | March 5, 2008 8:15 AM
I talked to so many people who say if Obama loses, then they will vote for McCain in the election. I would agree. I'm willing to change parties if Obama loses.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 8:27 AM
"At least we won't have to hold our nose as we vote."
You will want to hold your wallet once you see Hillary's income tax statement.
Posted by: Hedcutter | March 5, 2008 8:30 AM
Speak for yourself Bill R, if the nominee is Hillary, I'm skipping the prez election. My conscience won't let me vote for that b****.
Posted by: syj | March 5, 2008 8:15 AM
Thats your choice. When we go to war with Iran, I hope your old enough not to be drafted.
Posted by: bill "hussein" r. | March 5, 2008 8:31 AM
Yeah, interchangeable Socialists. So exciting.
Posted by: Scott - Houston, Tx | March 5, 2008 8:32 AM
Awwwwwww.....I'm beginning to feel sorry for all of the Hillary haters.
Posted by: Melvin | March 5, 2008 8:37 AM
I talked to so many people who say if Obama loses, then they will vote for McCain in the election. I would agree. I'm willing to change parties if Obama loses.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 8:27 AM
I find these post either disingenious or posted by the clowns on the right. If your voting for the name instead of the agenda, then it would seem you are awful shallow. These 2 campaigns are almost identical on the issues. I hope you also have no children that stand the chance of a draft when bomb bomb bomb Iran McBush, if he wins, would take us to maybe a third war. You don't think we will have a draft with THREE wars?
Posted by: bill "hussein" r. | March 5, 2008 8:38 AM
"The bitch" (Tina Fey's words, not mine) is back.
This nomination is poisoned.
The only way the Democrats can win is if Clinton heads it and Obama takes the VP slot.
She'll offer it, he should accept with conditions - he'll need hefty projects that can lead to measureable results.
Leaving as a bitter loser will ruin any chances for Obama to run in the future.
Obama has the delegate lead but that will quickly disappear if he can't win more states down the line.
Further, it won't be a nomination worth winning if Obama doesn't go into the convention with at least a 100 delegate vote lead.
Time to start thinking "graceful" exit.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | March 5, 2008 8:40 AM
That's what I really love.....people who threaten to 'take my ball home' if they can't be the pitcher - or in this case, if their candidate (Obama) doesn't win the Democratic Party's nomination. You would accuse anyone who acted the same way if their candidate (Clinton)didn't win the nomination of being a cry baby or sore loser. How about sucking it up and voting for the Democratic Party candidate in the fall, whoever it is. Do you think it makes a difference between Obama and Clinton as to what type of Supreme Court justice they nominate? Now compare that to the choices that John McCain will name to the Court. Grow up.
Posted by: Enhancer | March 5, 2008 8:44 AM
It should be quite clear that Hillary could not match McCain come November for various reasons. If Obama loses, Republicans will retain the White House for another sixteen years.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 8:45 AM
Disheartening, yes, that Hillary had this surge. But maybe it will permit her to chill out with all the petty negativity, and Obama can get on with his agenda and not be sideswiped by something shallow and irrelevant from Camp Clinton every couple of hours. The guy has work to do, Hill.
Posted by: Kit S. | March 5, 2008 8:51 AM
I, too, will vote Republican if Clinton wins the nomination.
While there is a risk of war with Iran with McCain, he still has to get that war approved by Congress, which is unlikely given the current national sentiment.
My concern with Clinton is her economic policy. It's not easy to forget how badly she mismanaged her campaign finances, including lavish expenditures for her and her staff while her supporters were sending her hard-earned donations. To me, this shows her disdain for the working class she claims to represent, as well as a frightening incompetency in economic management. I also cringe at the idea of mandated health care. Surely there is a better solution, but she seems to be unwilling to embrace or even consider ideas that are not her own -- not a good trait in a leader.
While not perfect, I think Obama was actually what people felt he was: someone who could bring people together to find the best solution for a problem, as opposed to someone who demanded blind obedience to their own solutions.
Posted by: ztruffle | March 5, 2008 8:54 AM
Hillary gets the top spot, Obama gets the second spot, but Hillary has to agree to be a one-term president so Obama can run in 2012. They come together behind this idea and November is an even bigger landslide than it would be otherwise. Obama is hiding behind his delegate lead as though it's decisive. It's anything but decisive. The popular vote is basically 50-50. Party elders must realize that winning Ohio by 20 points is more important than picking up delegates in the Guam caucus.
Posted by: Dave | March 5, 2008 8:59 AM
There is one thing that is very, very clear. A vote for McBush is a vote for a continuation of the Iraq war, and a mind set that has put this country in a world of mess. If your happy with the war, if your happy with the prospect of another, by all means vote McBush. If your tired of seeing our young men and women giving their lives and giving our treasure to the Iraqi government who more than likely will stick it to us in the future, by all means vote for war. Now it's your choice to vote for the war, just like we had back in 2003. Which way...your choice.
Posted by: bill "hussein" r. | March 5, 2008 9:01 AM
“Now that the race is really joined… "
This is going to be brilliant in November. November 10th: Hillary Clinton, declaring that she was just getting warmed up before now, sought to land a telling blow on John McCain, who won the election almost a week ago.
“In recent history, no one has ever been elected president who did not win their party’s primary in Ohio,’’ Clinton said.
This week, only Ohio counts. Her campaign keeps suggesting that maybe the Republicans will agree they can fight McCain in one large state.
By Bud: "Obama has the delegate lead but that will quickly disappear if he can't win more states down the line."
Bud, that's not remotely related to the math. Clinton had to win every state by 58% last night just to keep the bar at that level--also needing to win WY, MS, PA, etc on down the line by 58%. She only won RI by that much. By the rational bar of closing the delegate gap, she did not succeed. She raised it higher.
Now, I'd much prefer Obama had won every state last night. Failing to knock her out is a problem. It is, no doubt, harder for the supers to press her to cave today than it would have been. But someone needs to start putting forth the delegate math to bring her back up on pledged delegates. A Calvin-ball game where we count only delegates awarded after February--because poor Senator Clinton just wasn't warmed up until March--isn't going to sell.
Posted by: Deborah | March 5, 2008 9:20 AM
Blah, blah, blah. I will never vote for Hillary. And I do not believe the superdelegates will hand the election, over the will of the people. Her November argument --that she wins the states Dems need--is a strawman. In Nov, Obama will not be splitting the democratic vote; there be a clear contrast in policy positions b/n Obama and McCain; and most dems, a la the popular vote, will have their choice candidate (plus her voters are more likely to swing). How quickly that we forget, when you win half of CA in a democratic primary, for example, all that means is half of CA dems prefer you to your opponent --it does not say they prefer or would vote McCain over your opponent, that's a different race. Obama '08
Posted by: Sarah | March 5, 2008 9:41 AM
My concern with Clinton is her economic policy.
Posted by: ztruffle | March 5, 2008 8:54 AM
I see...so you think McBush who himself claimed he isn't good with the economy will do a better job. Or that The cost of this war hasn't pushed us over the edge. Then you mention her financial campaign problem...have you forgotten McCains Problems?
Posted by: bill "hussein" r. | March 5, 2008 9:45 AM
My concern with Clinton is her economic policy.
Posted by: ztruffle | March 5, 2008 8:54 AM
I see...so you think McBush who himself claimed he isn't good with the economy will do a better job. Or that The cost of this war hasn't pushed us over the edge. Then you mention her financial campaign problem...have you forgotten McCains Problems?
Posted by: bill "hussein" r. | March 5, 2008 9:46 AM
Remember, Clinton prevailed in large part because of Republican crossover to throw the vote toward her. Don't take my word for it, just google "Republicans cross over vote for Clinton."
Posted by: tony | March 5, 2008 9:54 AM
All polls have shown that Hilary Clinton will be the easiest to beat, then why are Dems voting for her? l do not understand the logic there?
The republicans will have a full year general election if she is the nominee with all those bagages in her closest.
Posted by: Susan | March 5, 2008 10:37 AM
Failing to knock her out is a problem.
Posted by: Deborah | March 5, 2008 9:20 AM
It sure is, she bought 6 weeks of bad press for Pinocchio Obama, he's joined at the hip with his "Syrian Godfather Rezko" it will come out in dribbles and drabs and it will wear him down to capitulation. On a different note has anybody noticed the striking resemblance of Rezko and Big Al Capone, he only needs to lose the mustache...i think they make you shave those off when you enter Federal prison
Posted by: Don B. | March 5, 2008 10:46 AM
Anyone who can get themselves elected President should on no account be allowed to do the job.---Douglas Adams
Posted by: Rod | March 5, 2008 10:51 AM
I have a son that is 20 years old and he has never known but two families that have run and ruined our country. I am 47 and have voted the democratic ticket for the first time in life and voted for Obama. I am part of the independent voters that have get Ronald Reagan elected president. I voted for the first George Bush the fist time and regretted my vote since, and i have not voted for a winning president since, and has voted independent. I'll be damned if im going to allow the clinton family four or eight more years of the same misery that has developed in this country the last 20 years. You can vote Hilliary if you want, but can you honestly say that at the end of Billiarys term was the country better off then in 1988 when Ronald Reagan left office... the answer would have to be no.
Are we better today then we were 20 years ago.. no.
The giant "sucking sound "of our childrens jobs that Ross Perot mention would happened, well it happened. You can vote Hiliary and keep selling out our childrens and grandchildrens future.
As for me i am going to write in Barrack obamas name in the general election and spit at Hilliary's picture. You cant blame me for our countries ills, for i havent vote for nothing but independents for 16 year.
thanks
talmadge williams of georgia
Posted by: talmadge williams | March 5, 2008 11:03 AM
Don B... why do you throw such garbage out there? Go back and listen to your all important Rezkowatch. What a sad existance waiting like a rabid animal for scraps to fall from a dirty table.
Posted by: bill "hussein" r. | March 5, 2008 11:21 AM
Re: Winning ugly
From today's "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/aprs-lui-le-dluge.html
"Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Après lui, le déluge
The kitchen sink runneth over.
The fact that many would fall prey to such a desperate, Rovian grab-bag of distortion and misrepresentation brings home a truth that, now more than ever, must be recognized--a truth about us.
As long as we remain susceptible to negative campaigning--as long as we allow inchoate fear and primitive doubt to overwhelm our capacity to understand and check the facts--we will get the winners we deserve-- namely, those who win ugly.
Democracy takes more than participation--a goal we have yet to achieve--it also takes a willingness to apply thought over fear.
We have been trained to respond to fear appeals aimed at the pursuit of electoral success very well over the past 7 years--and at this point, we should begin to become inured to them. In plain speaking: we should wise up.
The Clinton camp has discovered a formula that, at least in the days of its brief burst of novelty, has worked. We can expect a deluge of such tactics in the coming weeks.
However, despite a sink that will likely fill to bursting--paired, of course, with the conciliatory words that are meant to justify and allow further attacks--we now have time to adjust and evaluate.
We can and should do so.
A campaign that wins in adversity by the use of distortion and fear will govern in adversity in the same manner.
This is the true "red phone" lesson, one that we should remember over the coming weeks. Overcome vague appeals to fear. Pursue their reality. In the face of appeals to induced doubt, unproven "experienced", and dark insinuation, tenaciously get--and vote--the facts."
Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/aprs-lui-le-dluge.html
Posted by: Robert Hewson | March 5, 2008 5:51 PM
Release your TAX RECORDS Clinton. What are you afraid of ?
Posted by: PulSamsara | March 6, 2008 12:57 PM