Thursday, May 22, 2008

Why Obama Won't Seat FL & Mich

Craig Crawford of CQ Politics has a very interesting post explaining why Obama will never agree to seat Florida or Michigan -- even if his campaign goes over the magic 2026 delegates he claims to only need to go over the top.

The entire premise of Obama and his supporters has been that once he reaches the 2026 delegate count, Dems must anoint him the presidential nominee; maybe unfair, but those are the rules.

However, as Crawford points out, "even if [Obama] gathers enough superdelegate endorsements for a winning majority and Clinton suspends her campaign, [Clinton] could always revive her candidacy if something suddenly reversed Obama's chances, causing unbound delegates to waver."
And in such circumstances, the two large-state delegations (which gave Clinton the lion's share of their primary votes) could become a crucial factor if Obama had earlier agreed to seat them.
Obama ain't gonna let it happen. Too risky. Once Mich & FL are seated, unbound supers could always swing to Hillary and poof, there goes Obama's unity victory.

The key is that superdelegates do not have to rubberstamp Obama's strategy to suppress votes.
Their role is to consider what is best for the Democratic party in the fall; and if it becomes increasingly evident that Obama falters against McCain, supers can and will vote accordingly; those are the rules.

In the meantime, it sure looks like the biggest "primary" of all is coming up May 31 when members of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meet and decide what to do about Michigan and Florida.

I've got no use for Obama, but yeah, it must be self-interest. Don't even consider the fact that maybe he believes that the rules agreed to by all should be followed. Can't possibly be that.
Yep, the rules are the rulez.

And the rules say superdelegates can vote for whomever they estimate would make the strongest candidate against Sen. John McSame.
Yes, the rules also say that. Not appropos of the post in chief or my comment, but they DO say that.

I don't know why Obama is taking the position that he is. Could be expediency; could be principle. His position now has the advantage of being the position that he took when he didn't know the outcome.

Unlike Hitlary.

I suppose what we have here is what the psychologist types call "projection": you're projecting your candidate's situational ethics on the other guy. May be true, and since he's a Democrat, I strongly suspect that it is, but the charge is not sustainable on the current evidence.
I like that -- Hitlary. Nice image -- no sucker punches for her when she becomes president.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?