As I See It
1. Michigan and Florida are going to have delegates sitted in convention and voting. Somehow that is going to happen.
2. Obama will be able to run a much broader campaign than Clinton in the fall; he really is the instigator of the 50-state future for the D's; she is the do-over of Gore and Kerry.
3. The battle for the Democratic nomination is the most drawn-out, vigorous, compelling story of a nomination in the history of America. Anybody who thinks this is bad for America or Democrats is missing the big picture. It is however a enormous test of composure, character, and resolve for the two candidates. I admire both of them for their sheer ability to soldier on with courage, wisdom, and even wit and good cheer.
4. If either of the two candidates wins all or virtually all of the remaining voting, on a state by state basis, he or she will get nominated. But if the battle swings back and forth, then see point one above.
5. Obama won Iowa; Clinton NH; Superduper Tuesday was a draw; the next stretch went to Obama; last round to Clinton --- this in the finals at Wimbledon; this is one of the really great Super Bowls; this is the Lakers and the Celtics in the 80s. If you love contests, if you love life, you gotta love this. The candidate who loves it the most will probably win.
6. There are no dirty tricks at this stage; in other words, fight fiercely folks.
Hold it a minute. Hillarry hasn't quite won Texas. Infact Obama is winning Texas and this how:
Barack Obama likely to Win Texas
Things may not be as bad for Obama as they seemed Tuesday night. In the Texas primary Hillary Clinton leads in primary delegates by 65 to 61. But Obama is leading by a whopping 12% in the Caucus count. So far only 40% caucus results have come in and he is greadually increasing his lead. Even if the ultimate caucus result remains the same i.e. Obama's 56% to Clinton's 44%, Obama will win Texas overall (not counting the Super delegates). This is how the math works out:
Delegate Allocation:
Primary (99% results in) Clinton 65 Obama 61
Caucus (40% results in so far
Obama 56% Clinton 44%
assuming total 67 delegates
allocated on this basis) Clinton 29 Obama 38
Total Delegates Clinton 94 Obama99
Once all the caucus results are in, Obama should claim victory in Texas.
Also he needs to fire his advisor Goolsbee who damaged him tremendously in the Ohio primary by telling a Canadian Consulate employee in Chicago that Obama does not mean what he says about NAFTA. Obama should also address this issue in his next speech and take it head on to put this controversy to rest.
March 6, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
More Texas Democrats voted for Hillary than for Obama. For him to claim victory just exposes the absurdities of the process and it looks stupid.
March 6, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a truly idiotic argument.
The caucus represents one part of the vote, the primary another part. Both are split proportionately by the number of people who show up.
Each system has advantages and disadvantages. Neither is better than the other except in personal preference which each state chooses.
The advantage to caucuses is they're more like the original and purest form of Democracy: town hall meetings. They encourage a high degree of participation and more knowledgeable electorate. Unfortunately, fewer people are willing to make the effort even though they're open to all comers.
The advantage to polls is they allow people to quickly get in and out which increases turnout. Unfortunately, that also encourages less informed and more superficial voting, and voting turnout is still abysmally low in the US.
March 7, 2008 4:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo Mr Hundt. That's exactly as I see it. Personally, me thinks the Lady is showing more balls than the Gent.
March 6, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
My synopsis (actually synopsis) is as follows:
Hillary was way ahead of the pack.
It gets down to Hillary and Obama (and a few other hanger ons)
Hillary's "strategy" was to play nice with Obama. Try to reason with the voters. She will be ready from day one. Also "I'm very honored to be here on the same stage with you Barak Obama (which was nauseating , to be frank , unless it was a set up to sucker punch him afterwards)
At the same time that Hillary was playing nice, Barack--through his vast minions of Obamatrons both in the blogs and in the MSM--was viciously attacking her (she will do ANYTHING to get elected..."like what, murder perhaps...you get my point)
She racks up 11 straight losses.
She finally realizes that she needs to come out swinging or lose by default and she does.
She wins Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island.
Stay tuned for the next twist
Free advice to Obama: Stop being such a wussy hiding behind your "surrogates" and see how good you are mano a mano. As of now, she wins the first round.
March 6, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love your use of minions. Really drives your point home.
March 7, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can anyone expect to be taken seriously who talks about "Obamatrons?"
Do you really think that Clinton was making nice with her campaign in and after South Carolina?
March 7, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
She finally realizes that she needs to come out swinging or lose by default and she does.
So she lied. She smeared. She Roved. She Atwater'd.
No thanks.
Free advice to Obama: Stop being such a wussy hiding behind your "surrogates" and see how good you are mano a mano.
Okay. Let's talk about Ron Burkle, Hugh Rodham, Kazakhstan, tax returns, library donors, White House records.... The Clintons were broke, in fact deeply in debt, in January 2001, and now they have five million in cash laying around. How did that happen? And let's not forget, since the pretext is "vetting" and "facing the Republican", let's talk about Bill's sexlife. If he's kept it zipped for the last seven years, it's a new record.
March 6, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Christ Blue, give it a break will you? As a Liberal I'm not all that enamoured with the Clintons, but..
Hugh Rodham? Tax Returns? White House records?
Library donors? Bill's sex life??
It seems like you've been reading too many right wing blogs. Bill and Hillary were broke but came up with $5 million? Didn't each of them write books for which they made millions? Hasn't Bill been making speeches these last years for maybe $200k or more per?
Attacking Hillary is fine, but try something substantive like her Iraq war vote, her vote against the Levin amendment, her vote for the Kyl/Lieberman amendment, her membership in the Republican lite DLC, her NAFTA 'explanations',
even her recent compliments of McCain's qualifications as President.
March 7, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
After the way she lied about NAFTA and had her surrogates run around pimping Reszko, and her Liebermanish statements on McCain, I think she deserves anything and everything she gets.
Ten days ago I would have voted for her happily. I had high hopes for her non-presidential career, Senate Majority Leader, the Supreme Court. Now I just want this awful, triangulating, self-serving, Liebercrat to go away.
March 7, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have been waiting for the opportunity to use this line:
I feel better now that I no longer have to keep that inside.
Team Obama! Fuck Yeah!
March 7, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
"1. Michigan and Florida are going to have delegates sitted in convention and voting. Somehow that is going to happen."
Sure. But they can't be the deciding factor.
States have a trust with the national party and other states to agree to hold elections in an orderly manner so as to allow smaller votes to count and also to allow candidates to schedule campaign stops. If the larger states all rush to hold primaries earlier, it shuts out the small states who will never see the candidates and it would be an overall negative for our democracy.
Hillary knew that and pledged to abide by the rules as did Obama. Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot because he abided by his pledge, which Hillary broke.
Again, I'm sick of these politics as usual and the unprincipled way in which the country is being run. If thta's how Hillary wants to win the party nomination, then the party needs to split between principled voters and unprincipled voters.
"6. There are no dirty tricks at this stage; in other words, fight fiercely folks."
No, that's absolute crap.
We can't afford to elect the best liar and most amoral power crazed Machiavellian again. Issues are more complex than ever and the Presidency more powerful than it's been in a long time, maybe ever. We're in the middle of two wars with more crisis on the horizon. We're in another gilded age and entering a recession. International challenges are today as large and more complex than at the beginning of the cold war. The environment is on the verge of catastrophe. These are serious issues that are going to challenge or leadership and more importantly the people to make good choices.
More than ever we need someone who is honest with the people. Who respects the law and principle of an informed electorate as essential to a healthy democracy.
Hundt really should think about what he writes, and get himself a head exam.
March 7, 2008 4:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one who is currently running meets this criteria.
Now what?
March 7, 2008 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon me for being an optimist, but Bill Nelson's and Howard Dean's comments yesterday mean the DNC and the FL Democratic Party have finally opened negotiations over a revote. The sticking point will be over who will pay. Don't mistake Dean's "not us" response for an absolute no. This is how these things always begin.
There is movement in Michigan too. The two jokers in the deck are the governors. Charlie Crist will try to play this to the GOP's advantage. Jennifer Granholm is a Clinton supporter and will toe the party line there. But things are happening.
I have a feeling they'll get worked out once it becomes blindingly apparent that Clinton can't win a pledged delegate majority, even with the invalid FL and MI results added in. At that point she'll move for a revote, hoping she does better than the first time around. It may be July, but it will happen, because she won't leave any stone unturned.
March 7, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not for someone dropping out of the race just for the good of the party, but the chances of Clinton actually winning the nomination at this point are very remote, aren't they? As in, practically impossible?
Meanwhile, Clinton is announcing that only she and McCain are qualified to be president, when she only has a couple more years in elected office than Obama. I defended this statement a few days ago when I thought it was an off-the-cuff statement about how the campaign would be fought in the fall. But now she's making it part of her stump speech, which is counterproductive to the Democrats, since Obama is almost certain to be the nominee.
The whole nomination process is a mess and a sham, and only die-hard political junkies (and pundits) could be revelling in it at this point. Also, from where I'm sitting (in Canada), it's an embarrassment.
March 7, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama actually has a couple more years in elected office than Hillary, has run in 7 campaigns to her 3 (counting the present campaign).
It amazes me how easily people buy into Hillary's claims of great experience.
March 7, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's the same way people "buy in" Obama's hope message.
What REASON is there to believe that Obama can actually deliver on the hope message--that is, bring everyone together?
That he worked with some Republicans in Illinois and the Senate? Well, Hillary has worked with Republicans in the Senate, too.
Maybe more so--although, in her case, this bi-partisan activity is always cast as a negative.
That he worked to bring the conservatives and liberals together on the Harvard Law review? Isn't that a small pond to count?
In short, Obama's claim to fame and support are as vaporous as Hillary's in many ways. The same went for Edwards, BTW, who ended up repudiating many of his votes, leading me to think that he was good on the stump, but much less good when he had to take a vote that counted.
I believe Obama is on record saying that he's not sure he would have done anything different than Hillary (or Bush, even) on the war. Don't have the exact quote, but it's worth remembering as we all vote for Obama (as I did and will). Keep your eyes open.
Workerbee has pointed out that Obama stumped for Lieberman. I happened to think that Lamont was a bit jejeune, and didn't like his lack of seriousness, but nevertheless, he was the anti-war candidate, and Obama stumped for him. No one's hands stay clean when they're trying to climb the ladder to power.
Remember: It wasn't too long ago that many here used the word "bipartisan" as a curse. Bi-partisanship is actually what Obama is selling. (If Iraqis had greeted us with flowers, he would have deep-sixed his 2002 speech, trust me.) HE doesn't think Hillary is a monster and, should she win, HE will vote for HER. Count on it.
March 7, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
The big flap over an Obama aide having told the Canadian government that Obama's comments about NAFTA were just campaign rhetoric was a very dirty trick. It was actually a Clinton aide who told the Canadian government to discount Clinton's campaign rhetoric. But, the Canadian right wingers prefer Clinton to run against McCain, so they reversed the names. They have since apologized for meddling in our elections that way, of course, long after the meddling had its intended effect.
As far as Clinton's big win in Texas goes - it went.
March 7, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Hunt, your loyalties are showing. Without saying it, you are arguing for a no-holds-barred, no rules brawl. This is what what the Clinton campaign is doing now, not against the Right, but against brothers and sisters. And you are endorsing it jovially. You should at least say whom you favor.
Sports events have some rules, don't they? It seems that you are arguing for none. Throw some oil on the tennis court. I can see fighting this way against the Republican Attack Machine but I cannot see it between opponents within a party that supposedly wants to win an election and...govern.
Interesting view, btw, for a former chair of a regulatory commission.
March 7, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democratic Party would suffer if the issues of Michigan and Florida are not resolved prior to the convention. The party does not need pictures of empty seats, nor the selection of a 48 state nominee.
Lovely line: "I admire both of them for their sheer ability to soldier on with courage, wisdom, and even wit and good cheer."
Now, if we can only get past the vitriol.
March 7, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am all for a good, and heated, debate on the issues. In that case I would say fight on.
But...
HRC went over the line when she endorsed McCain as president, in terms of "foreign policy experience, over Obama. Has she lost her f'ing mind? Seriously...it sounds like she would almost prefer being McCain's running mate instead of Obama's if she doesn't win the nomination herself. She is channeling Atwater and Rove...and it is nauseating and disgusting. I am having trouble wrapping my brain around the fact that she actually said that McCain would make a better president than Obama!!!! WTF???!!!
March 8, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink