Fasten Your Seatbelts

by

Well, this week is off to a fast start. Obama is hitting back at Hillary on her odd combination of saying he’s unqualified to be commander-in-chief, then turning around and offering him the VP gig.

Meanwhile, Hillary appears to be going back on her statement, a couple of weeks ago, that she wouldn’t try to talk Obama’s pledged delegates into voting for her. She said in a Newsweek interview that all the delegates, not just the supers, are free to vote for whomever they choose. Her campaign then released a statement saying they would not pursue Obama’s “pledged” delegates. But here’s the catch. In her interview, Hillary made an entirely new distinction between “elected” delegates and “caucus” delegates, as though the latter were somehow not elected.

I smell some sharp pleading. Who does her campaign mean when they say they won’t go after Obama’s “pledged” delegates? Do they regard “caucus” delegates as somehow unpledged, and therefore fair game?

Advertisements

11 Responses to “Fasten Your Seatbelts”

  1. Terry A. Says:

    The Obama-as-Veep campaign is fiendishly, unscrupulously brilliant, and Tim Russert and others bought in immediately. By just talking about Obama’s willingness or unwillingness to take the position, they’re essentially creating the assumption that he’ll have to settle for it. That he can’t win the nomination.

    Them Clintons is sharp. And dirty.

    Both of which we knew already.

  2. urbino Says:

    It’s brilliant, but in a dumb sort of way.

  3. urbino Says:

    Q: How can you tell the difference between a Democratic sex scandal, and a Republican sex scandal?

    A: The Democratic ones are heterosexual.

    More seriously, this is obviously going to step all over the story of Obama’s pushback, which is a shame.

  4. ari Says:

    Yes, a shame. As for going after the pledged delegates, I’m not seeing it. I really do think it’s a ploy to elicit a hasty response from Obama, who’ll then be forced to ignore some other problem (this is the nature of the kitchen-sink strategy). I mean, court his pledged delegates; is there anything more anit-democratic that you can think of?

  5. urbino Says:

    Vlad Putin?

    You may be right about it being a feint, but I wouldn’t put it past her to truly go after them. She seems to be genuinely convinced that she’s the only Dem who could win the general, and nobody treads on the peeps like someone convinced of his/her own righteousness.

  6. urbino Says:

    Plus, if they seriously believe their rhetoric about caucuses being anti-democratic, then they’d see Obama’s “caucus delegates” as inherently illegitimate, anyway, and therefore fair game.

    That’s what I think is going on. By distinguishing “caucus delegates” from “elected delegates,” I think they’re setting themselves up to justify going after the former.

  7. ari Says:

    If you’re right, and she succeeds even once (as in, one delegate), all hell will break loose. She’ll be slapped down so fast that it will make her head spin.

  8. msmiranda Says:

    I am really starting to hate her. Hate is a strong word, I know, but we’re getting there. Check out the Orlando Patterson op-ed in the NY Times today charging that the “Red Phone” ad was intentionally racist. Don’t know whether they did that intentionally or not, but at this point it wouldn’t surprise me.

    I hate to be one of those people who says “if my candidate doesn’t get the nomination, I’m voting for John McCain.” And I would never vote for McCain. But a week ago I was thinking, well, I’ll still vote for her because we have to stick together. Now I’m once again questioning whether I could do it.

    I have read several op-eds arguing that a prolonged nomination battle is good for the Democrats, that it keeps McCain from knowing who to attack for a few more months, and that the Democrats will come together behind whoever it ends up being. I am not so sure I buy that. Particularly if, as seems to be happening, we are headed for a nomination that is decided at the convention in some kind of shady way (superdelegates, FL & MI, caucus delegates, whatever). I just have a bad feeling about all of it.

  9. urbino Says:

    I dunno, Ari. Sounds like there’s precedent.

    It’s wearing on me, too, miranda. The me, me, me desperation gets old after a while.

  10. babykangaroo Says:

    Urbino said:
    “Q: How can you tell the difference between a Democratic sex scandal, and a Republican sex scandal?

    A: The Democratic ones are heterosexual.”

    Jim McGreevey, anyone? Sure, it’s just a joke, but it would be a lot funnier if it was more “truthy.”

  11. urbino Says:

    You’re right. It was a joke. Sorry it was lost on you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: