« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
the sudden burst of manufactured attacks on Obama
This was to be expected. It often happens right before a primary vote but I think we can expect a slew of attacks that will revive false claims--Muslim, terrorist, anti-semite, etc..
Thousands of bloggers have been dispatched and they're slingshotting rumors across the internet, hoping one catches on.
Also, the new "popular vote" metric is being marketed by the Clintons, despite the fact that there is no "popular vote metric" in the Democratic primary. It's like losing a football game and saying that more people in the stadium were cheering for you, therefore you win.
The nominee is chosen by reaching a certain amount of delegates.
No candidate has reached that number yet. But now even the number is being contested.
Good luck to both candidates.
Comments (10)
Yeah, those silly metrics ... like the one Obama's supporters wanted back after winning Iowa where all of a state's super delegates were supposed to back the candidate that won the majority of votes in the primaries. That was a neat little Obama trick until he lost Massachusetts and he risked losing support from Kerry and Kennedy.
Winning a simple majority in a state is prima facia evidence that Obama "won" another state and Clinton needs to get out of the race. But if Clinton wins a 2.5:1 blowout in West Virginia then she's a racist and W.V. doesn't matter anyway.
It's a two-way street in fudging the numbers.
May 20, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only problem with your claim is that the Clinton campaign has exploited the inherent racism in several states against Obama, where the Obama campaign has not exploited the inherent sexism against Clinton.
May 20, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course because Obama's supporters calling her B**ch and C**T are just local colloquialisms of fond support.
May 20, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't seen any of that, and I read 20-30 progressive blogs quite regularly. The only person I've heard having used the c-word is the fallback candidate for Clinton's supporters. How ironic.
May 20, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well obviously you don't read this blog very regularly or you would be well aware with those names being used for Senator Clinton on a daily basis.
May 20, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems you're confusing a candidate's campaign and the candidate's supporters. Hardly the same thing.
May 20, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama didn't call for the rules to be changed.
Not that that would have been possible.
And according to the rules, Obama is doing just fine.
May 20, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is always changing the rules to favor him
read it hereRemind me again which DNC rules says that super delegates should blindly support the nominee with the most pledged delegates?
May 20, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think a more appropriate analogy is that you gained more yards, just not more points...
May 20, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
pmSanFran:
Arguing that superdelegates should support the PD winner is a suggestion of how they exercise their judgement. It's not "changing the rules." (I can't read yer link, so if he argues they should be *bound* to do that, then it's a rule change, but I don;'t remember that analysis)
Getting the rules committee to reverse an earlier decision, ignore the violation of that decision, and admit MI and FL is, by definition, changing the rules.
I'll be real happy when I read a novel pro-Clinton argument that doesn't indict the agreed-to system or conflate the Obama campaign with vicious, alleged "supporters."
May 21, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment